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

[Ifreann]

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

Don't believe the OP's lies.

[Genivaria]

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

Don't believe the OP's lies.

Oh?

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?

I have very slow internet and the OP's link is still loading, guess that's what I get.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Come to America. The European Union is evil.

I agree. Anyone who is so wildly uneducated and ignorant as to believe this OP should move to America. They'd feel much more... at home there, let's say.

And anyone who is way too weak to survive in the real world, and start crying like a baby at a so called "microagression" should go to Europe. They'll feel more... at home there.

[Vassenor]

I agree. Anyone who is so wildly uneducated and ignorant as to believe this OP should move to America. They'd feel much more... at home there, let's say.

And anyone who is way too weak to survive in the real world, and start crying like a baby at a so called "microagression" should go to Europe. They'll feel more... at home there.

I'll take "things that don't actually happen" for $1000, Alex.

[Dumb Ideologies]

I agree. Anyone who is so wildly uneducated and ignorant as to believe this OP should move to America. They'd feel much more... at home there, let's say.

And anyone who is way too weak to survive in the real world, and start crying like a baby at a so called "microagression" should go to Europe. They'll feel more... at home there.

Everyone should stay exactly where they are until they grow roots and start photosynthesising.

[Ifreann]

Don't believe the OP's lies.

Oh?

This was a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights(ECtHR), which has nothing to do with the EU, in favour of Austria, finding that their blasphemy law does not violate the European Convention on Human Rights(ECHR). Austria had been taken to court by a woman who was facing a fine under that blasphemy law. The ECHR's protection of free speech is not absolute.

This ruling absolutely does not expand Austria's blasphemy law to cover all of Europe, nothing like that is remotely possible, and Austria's blasphemy law is not specific to any religion.

[Kyrinasaj]

And anyone who is way too weak to survive in the real world, and start crying like a baby at a so called "microagression" should go to Europe. They'll feel more... at home there.

Everyone should stay exactly where they are until they grow roots and start photosynthesising.

This but unironically

[Kyrinasaj]

And anyone who is way too weak to survive in the real world, and start crying like a baby at a so called "microagression" should go to Europe. They'll feel more... at home there.

I'll take "things that don't actually happen" for $1000, Alex.

Do Americans honestly think all of Europe is one big college?

[Genivaria]

Oh?

This was a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights(ECtHR), which has nothing to do with the EU, in favour of Austria, finding that their blasphemy law does not violate the European Convention on Human Rights(ECHR). Austria had been taken to court by a woman who was facing a fine under that blasphemy law. The ECHR's protection of free speech is not absolute.

This ruling absolutely does not expand Austria's blasphemy law to cover all of Europe, nothing like that is remotely possible, and Austria's blasphemy law is not specific to any religion.

Ah so then yeah OP is downright lying, thanks for getting me caught up.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

This was a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights(ECtHR), which has nothing to do with the EU, in favour of Austria, finding that their blasphemy law does not violate the European Convention on Human Rights(ECHR). Austria had been taken to court by a woman who was facing a fine under that blasphemy law. The ECHR's protection of free speech is not absolute.

This ruling absolutely does not expand Austria's blasphemy law to cover all of Europe, nothing like that is remotely possible, and Austria's blasphemy law is not specific to any religion.

Ah so then yeah OP is downright lying, thanks for getting me caught up.

I'm going to telegram the OP to ask that he change the lying title.

[Lord Dominator]

Ah so then yeah OP is downright lying, thanks for getting me caught up.

I'm going to telegram the OP to ask that he change the lying title.

Ask them to also change the line about Luxembourg

[The Realist Polities]

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

Don't believe the OP's lies.

Where did I lie?
I never mentioned the EU.
Besides, this ruling makes case law, which does affect international law.

You seem to be quite aggressive over this but since I did not attack or defame you, I'd like the same courtesy. thank you.

[The Realist Polities]

I'm going to telegram the OP to ask that he change the lying title.

Ask them to also change the line about Luxembourg

That has been changed. It should read 'Strasbourg'.
As for the legal implications of this, they very much are continent wide as the jurisdiction of the ECHR is continental and this is how they will decide continentally.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Ask them to also change the line about Luxembourg

That has been changed. It should read 'Strasbourg'.
As for the legal implications of this, they very much are continent wide as the jurisdiction of the ECHR is continental and this is how they will decide continentally.

It still doesn't declare a Europe wide blasphemy law though. While the court held one up, that particular law still doesn't apply to you unless you live in Austria. The court obviously don't have free speech in mind, and it's pretty pathetic, but you're nation will have to pass such a law for you to be effected by it. The precedence it sets is still pretty dangerous though, I agree with you on that.

[Ifreann]

Don't believe the OP's lies.

Where did I lie?
I never mentioned the EU.
Besides, this ruling makes case law, which does affect international law.

You seem to be quite aggressive over this but since I did not attack or defame you, I'd like the same courtesy. thank you.

The title of this thread is a lie.

[Auristania]

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?

Because the statement I do not believe Islam equals the statement Mohamed is a false prophet and it is blasphemy to say that he is a false prophet.

[The Realist Polities]

No one said it didn't and you know your position is weak which is why you resort to a strawman.

Yes, there are restrictions on civil liberties in eastern europe. No, there isn't a social engineering utopian project mandating thought control.

- "This sort of law would be unthinkable in Russia"
- "Russia has a blasphemy law"
- "Strawman, no one said it didn't".

So do you not understand what you wrote first when you said the sort of law would be unthinkalble in Russia, or do you not understand what a strawman is?

ok, so no one in Russia mocks Islam?
Because it is one thing to have laws that restrict incitement and another to forbid free speech and on top of that to selectively enforce them on behalf of a minority.
In certain muslim regions of Russia they might but that's a different case.

[Eglaecia]

Good move by the ECHR. I'm going to press charges against anyone who claims the Nazis were responsible for the holocaust now.

[The Realist Polities]

No one said it didn't and you know your position is weak which is why you resort to a strawman.

Yes, there are restrictions on civil liberties in eastern europe. No, there isn't a social engineering utopian project mandating thought control.

- "This sort of law would be unthinkable in Russia"
- "Russia has a blasphemy law"
- "Strawman, no one said it didn't".

So do you not understand what you wrote first when you said the sort of law would be unthinkalble in Russia, or do you not understand what a strawman is?

OK, I stand corrected, Russia can be as bad as the West. Where does free speech survive these days?


Russia says Mohammed (PBUH) cartoon publication illegal
https://www.dawn.com/news/1157424

[Vassenor]

Good move by the ECHR. I'm going to press charges against anyone who claims the Nazis were responsible for the holocaust now.

So what religion would such a statement blaspheme?

[Ifreann]

Good move by the ECHR. I'm going to press charges against anyone who claims the Nazis were responsible for the holocaust now.

Oh?

This was a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights(ECtHR), which has nothing to do with the EU, in favour of Austria, finding that their blasphemy law does not violate the European Convention on Human Rights(ECHR). Austria had been taken to court by a woman who was facing a fine under that blasphemy law. The ECHR's protection of free speech is not absolute.

This ruling absolutely does not expand Austria's blasphemy law to cover all of Europe, nothing like that is remotely possible, and Austria's blasphemy law is not specific to any religion.

[Eglaecia]

Good move by the ECHR. I'm going to press charges against anyone who claims the Nazis were responsible for the holocaust now.

So what religion would such a statement blaspheme?

Blasphemy doesn't have to be directed towards an organised religion.

Good move by the ECHR. I'm going to press charges against anyone who claims the Nazis were responsible for the holocaust now.

This was a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights(ECtHR), which has nothing to do with the EU, in favour of Austria, finding that their blasphemy law does not violate the European Convention on Human Rights(ECHR). Austria had been taken to court by a woman who was facing a fine under that blasphemy law. The ECHR's protection of free speech is not absolute.

This ruling absolutely does not expand Austria's blasphemy law to cover all of Europe, nothing like that is remotely possible, and Austria's blasphemy law is not specific to any religion.

That's "more" relieving, however the existence of blasphemy laws is detrimental to free speech in the first place.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Good move by the ECHR. I'm going to press charges against anyone who claims the Nazis were responsible for the holocaust now.

So what religion would such a statement blaspheme?

Positive Christianity. Yes, it exists, and it is a stupid religion created by the Nazis.

[Ifreann]

So what religion would such a statement blaspheme?

Blasphemy doesn't have to be directed towards an organised religion.

That's "more" relieving, however the existence of blasphemy laws is detrimental to free speech in the first place.

Tell it to Austria, nobody made them have a blasphemy law.

[The Realist Polities]

Where did I lie?
I never mentioned the EU.
Besides, this ruling makes case law, which does affect international law.

You seem to be quite aggressive over this but since I did not attack or defame you, I'd like the same courtesy. thank you.

The title of this thread is a lie.

Did you also declare the 'mail bombs to clintons and obamas' posting a lie?
I noticed you were pretty active on that thread.
Since the 'bombs' were apparently props, then the post title is not quite accurate...

If we already know ECHR will decide similarly in cases in other CoE countries, and if we know ECHR law influences lawfare elsewhere in Europe, namely in the supranational ECJ, then this ruling is as good as a continental blasphemy law.
You can disagree with my interpretation, you cannot accuse me of writing without a factual basis.

Keep your outrage for those who cry 'FAASCIST!!' every time a right-wing candidate they dislike wins elections.