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

[Eglaecia]

So what religion would such a statement blaspheme?

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

Positive Christianity wasn't the worship of the Nazis

[United Muscovite Nations]

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?

Actually, yeah, that's pretty fucking serious considering the Prophet Muhammad is the key Islamic figure. Not being able to criticize Muhammad's character means tacit acceptance of the Muslim religion, as not being able to accuse him of poor character must naturally mean you can't accuse him of lying.

[Zapato]

The title of this thread is a lie.

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.

You're writing without factual basis.

Blasphemy is not suddenly illegal in Spain because of this ruling.

[Ifreann]

The title of this thread is a lie.

Your nation's designation is a lie: your nation is not a centrist democracy, it is a communist regime.

You know that's automatically generated by the game, right?

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.

It is entirely without a factual basis. The legal situation in Europe today is the exact same as it was a week ago. Nothing is now legal that was not legal a week ago, nothing is now illegal that was not illegal a week ago. It can only be a lie to describe that as a Europe-wide blasphemy law being imposed on you.

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

Stop lying and people will stop calling out your lies.

[Zapato]

So what religion would such a statement blaspheme?

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

Strafbare Handlungen gegen den religiösen Frieden und die Ruhe der Toten
Herabwürdigung religiöser Lehren

§ 188. Wer öffentlich eine Person oder eine Sache, die den Gegenstand der Verehrung einer im Inland bestehenden Kirche oder Religionsgesellschaft bildet, oder eine Glaubenslehre, einen gesetzlich zulässigen Brauch oder eine gesetzlich zulässige Einrichtung einer solchen Kirche oder Religionsgesellschaft unter Umständen herabwürdigt oder verspottet, unter denen sein Verhalten geeignet ist, berechtigtes Ärgernis zu erregen, ist mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu sechs Monaten oder mit Geldstrafe bis zu 360 Tagessätzen zu bestrafen.

[Mystic Warriors]

Well, at least that doesn't happen here. Yet....

[Olerand]

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.

We don't believe in microagressions. It is an entirely American invention.

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.

I have never wished for a civil law paywall more than now... Case law? So you think blasphemy is now valid in front of the ECHR in a French case?

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.

We don't believe in microagressions. It is an entirely American invention.

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.

Yes it does.

Blame Austria.

Well, at least that doesn't happen here. Yet....

This is like wack-a-mole...

[Bienenhalde]

Except that it's not for Islam only, is it? Because way back in 1994 the ECHR ruled in Otto-Premiger-Institut v. Austria that the Austrian authorities were allowed to ban the showing of a film Das Liebeskonzil that was considered by some to be insulting to Catholics.

And it's not really Europe wide either, because this permits governments to have blasphemy laws (within limits), it doesn't require it.

But I guess "ECHR rules that Austria's blasphemy laws cover all religions, not just the ones I'd like them to" isn't quite as snappy as the lie that is the thread title.

Sounds reasonable to me. I do not see any good reason why European nations should tolerate blasphemy against the Christian faith anyway.

[Vassenor]

Except that it's not for Islam only, is it? Because way back in 1994 the ECHR ruled in Otto-Premiger-Institut v. Austria that the Austrian authorities were allowed to ban the showing of a film Das Liebeskonzil that was considered by some to be insulting to Catholics.

And it's not really Europe wide either, because this permits governments to have blasphemy laws (within limits), it doesn't require it.

But I guess "ECHR rules that Austria's blasphemy laws cover all religions, not just the ones I'd like them to" isn't quite as snappy as the lie that is the thread title.

Sounds reasonable to me. I do not see any good reason why European nations should tolerate blasphemy against the Christian faith anyway.

Because blasphemy laws are a massive anachronism.

[Shofercia]

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?

She was from Vienna, found guilty by the Vienna Regional Court, meaning that she probably held the seminars in Vienna, rather than an Austrian City that was a war zone less than two decades ago. Thus the analogous Russian cities could be Moscow, the current capital, or St. Petersburg, the previous capital, or Novgorod, Russia's first capital, or Kazan, Russia's Cultural Islamic capital. But you knew that none of those cities would fit the bill for your poorly thought out comparison, so you threw in Grozny, which has no analogies in Austria, since Austria doesn't have cities that were war zones less than two decades ago. Your failure to grasp this or your deliberate attempt at deviousness, tells me what to expect from your future posts.

[Blackledge]

How dare that vile heathen smear the Prophet and his marriage to a 6 year old.

That sounds kind of pedophilic.

[Olerand]

Which part of my post did you interpret as misinformation?

She was from Vienna, found guilty by the Vienna Regional Court, meaning that she probably held the seminars in Vienna, rather than an Austrian City that was a war zone less than two decades ago. Thus the analogous Russian cities could be Moscow, the current capital, or St. Petersburg, the previous capital, or Novgorod, Russia's first capital, or Kazan, Russia's Cultural Islamic capital. But you knew that none of those cities would fit the bill for your poorly thought out comparison, so you threw in Grozny, which has no analogies in Austria, since Austria doesn't have cities that were war zones less than two decades ago. Your failure to grasp this or your deliberate attempt at deviousness, tells me what to expect from your future posts.

What does being warzones have to do with the legal system in 2018?

[Vassenor]

How dare that vile heathen smear the Prophet and his marriage to a 6 year old.

That sounds kind of pedophilic.

And not actually the subject of this thread.

[The Serbian Empire]

That sounds kind of pedophilic.

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.

[Zapato]

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.

Spain does not have blasphemy laws.

[The Serbian Empire]

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.

Spain does not have blasphemy laws.

It was listed on Wikipedia, but what am I to know as if it still exist then it certainly has been rendered toothless akin to Michigan's profanity law which was ruled unconstitutional.

[Neoliberal Vampires]

Which part of my post did you interpret as misinformation?

She was from Vienna, found guilty by the Vienna Regional Court, meaning that she probably held the seminars in Vienna, rather than an Austrian City that was a war zone less than two decades ago. Thus the analogous Russian cities could be Moscow, the current capital, or St. Petersburg, the previous capital, or Novgorod, Russia's first capital, or Kazan, Russia's Cultural Islamic capital. But you knew that none of those cities would fit the bill for your poorly thought out comparison, so you threw in Grozny, which has no analogies in Austria, since Austria doesn't have cities that were war zones less than two decades ago. Your failure to grasp this or your deliberate attempt at deviousness, tells me what to expect from your future posts.

I never suggested that Grozny is to Russia what Vienna is to Austria, that's just some weird interpretation of my argument that seemingly only you have drawn. I was disabusing the notion that after this ruling Russia is somehow freer than Western Europe. Not Moscow, St Petersburg, Novgorod or Kazan - but Russia in its entirety. Which is plainly nonsense as in Chechnya, which as you are well aware is still part of Russia, I strongly doubt this would be considered acceptable by the authorities there.

[Australian rePublic]

Oh please. If I, as a Christian, were to chuck a hissy fit about everytime someone made fun of Jesus, I would be locked in a looney asylum. Why does Mohammed get special treatment?

[Olerand]

Oh please. If I, as a Christian, were to chuck a hissy fit about everytime someone made fun of Jesus, I would be locked in a looney asylum. Why does Mohammed get special treatment?

Whack-a-mole...

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.

This patently false OP is a problem. Misinformation spreads like wildfire amongst those already lacking in knowledge on the subject.

[Ifreann]

Oh please. If I, as a Christian, were to chuck a hissy fit about everytime someone made fun of Jesus, I would be locked in a looney asylum. Why does Mohammed get special treatment?

If you think European blasphemy laws have never been used to punish anti-Christian blasphemy then you are doing a silly.

[The Realist Polities]

It is entirely without a factual basis.

THAT is a lie. Case Law matters, especially when international courts feed off each other's precedents for justification in revolutionary rulings.

The legal situation in Europe today is the exact same as it was a week ago. Nothing is now legal that was not legal a week ago, nothing is now illegal that was not illegal a week ago. It can only be a lie to describe that as a Europe-wide blasphemy law being imposed on you.

YOU are LYING because the ECHR has just created doctrine. For itself and for others.

You may want to ignore that because you are biased but it doesn't change the FACT that this decision matters and not just for Austria.

Just out of curiosity, were you also one of those that mocked Trump for the Sweden remarks? Just wondering.
Are you sure these comments of yours will age well?

If you want to call the title exageration, I am ok with that but to accuse me of lying reveals disingenuous bad faith.

[Olerand]

It is entirely without a factual basis.

THAT is a lie. Case Law matters, especially when international courts feed off each other's precedents for justification in revolutionary rulings.

The legal situation in Europe today is the exact same as it was a week ago. Nothing is now legal that was not legal a week ago, nothing is now illegal that was not illegal a week ago. It can only be a lie to describe that as a Europe-wide blasphemy law being imposed on you.

YOU are LYING because the ECHR has just created doctrine. For itself and for others.

You may want to ignore that because you are biased but it doesn't change the FACT that this decision matters and not just for Austria.

Just out of curiosity, were you also one of those that mocked Trump for the Sweden remarks? Just wondering.
Are you sure these comments of yours will age well?

If you want to call the title exageration, I am ok with that but to accuse me of lying reveals disingenuous bad faith.

Case law means literally nothing in civil law. This law is not applicable to France, which has no blasphemy law.

There needs to be a knowledge paywall for common law individuals on civil law matters.

[The Realist Polities]

You're writing without factual basis.

Blasphemy is not suddenly illegal in Spain because of this ruling.

You are aware the ECHR is not an Austrian court right?

What is the purpose of the ECHR? what is the purpose of the EConvHR?

Is it to make an impact on Austria?............................

ECHR decisions are not meant to govern states individually.

[The Realist Polities]

THAT is a lie. Case Law matters, especially when international courts feed off each other's precedents for justification in revolutionary rulings.



YOU are LYING because the ECHR has just created doctrine. For itself and for others.

You may want to ignore that because you are biased but it doesn't change the FACT that this decision matters and not just for Austria.

Just out of curiosity, were you also one of those that mocked Trump for the Sweden remarks? Just wondering.
Are you sure these comments of yours will age well?

If you want to call the title exageration, I am ok with that but to accuse me of lying reveals disingenuous bad faith.

Case law means literally nothing in civil law. This law is not applicable to France, which has no blasphemy law.

There needs to be a knowledge paywall for common law individuals on civil law matters.

Oh this is great. So that means that ECHR decisions don't make doctrine and that any state is free to disobey them.

[Olerand]

Case law means literally nothing in civil law. This law is not applicable to France, which has no blasphemy law.

There needs to be a knowledge paywall for common law individuals on civil law matters.

Oh this is great. So that means that ECHR decisions don't make doctrine and that any state is free to disobey them.

It means that this case has been decided, and such an issue might be brought up to the Court again, and depending on the facts of that case, the Court might rule differently. This decision also, exclusively, solely, uniquely, upholds an Austrian law, in Austria.

Do you know how civil law works?

Perhaps this thread and your OP aren't so wildly wrong due to bad faith, but genuine ignorance of a non-common law system?