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

[Lord Dominator]

ECHR decisions are not meant to govern states individually.

Correct, they determine whether or not an individual state has violated the European Convention on Human Rights. This decision only matters if when talking about other states with blasphemy laws, and only then if someone allegedly violates such and is penalized for it, and only then as an existing precedent/case to reference.

[The Realist Polities]

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

This patently lying player is a problem. Misinformers spread lies that spread like wildfire among the ignorant.

Assessing the Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems
https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi ... fss_papers

"Reception processes have, in turn,
provoked deep changes in European Government, through the accumulation of
incremental, step-by-step adjustments to the demands of the Strasbourg Court.
National officials are, gradually but inexorably, being socialized into a Europe of
rights, a unique transnational legal space now seeking to develop its own logic of
political and juridical legitimacy. "

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Oh, well thats kinda bad. It is bad beacuse any blasphemy law in a place that has free religion is a stupid move.

Oh well, it's not going be that big of a deal and people shouldn't over react-

1984 is now, I am not free, Russia is now officially freer than western Europe.

...never mind, they are going to freak out over this little thing.

[Zapato]

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.

What? Yes they are. That's exactly what they're for.

[Ifreann]

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.

This decisions doesn't really matter at all. Blasphemy laws are probably legal. Which was already true before this decision. Obviously, since several CoE nations have blasphemy laws.


Well, it matters for the woman who'll be paying a fine to the Austrian courts.

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?

I have no idea what you are talking about but chances are I've mocked Trump for everything he's said. He's a moron and I am a prolific poster.

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

I'll call the title a lie until and unless you change it. It's a lie. The ECtHR has not decreed a Europe-wide blasphemy law for Islam only.

[Olerand]

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

This patently lying player is a problem. Misinformers spread lies that spread like wildfire among the ignorant.

Assessing the Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems
https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi ... fss_papers

"Reception processes have, in turn,
provoked deep changes in European Government, through the accumulation of
incremental, step-by-step adjustments to the demands of the Strasbourg Court.
National officials are, gradually but inexorably, being socialized into a Europe of
rights, a unique transnational legal space now seeking to develop its own logic of
political and juridical legitimacy. "

Yes, the ECHR's decisions are binding (though States find ways to not comply). There is no case law, and no obligation of precedence in civil law systems. This is, literally, beyond basic knowledge, if one has it, of civil law systems.

ECHR decisions are not meant to govern states individually.

Correct, they determine whether or not an individual state has violated the European Convention on Human Rights. This decision only matters if when talking about other states with blasphemy laws, and only then if someone allegedly violates such and is penalized for it, and only then as an existing precedent/case to reference.

This decision is not precedent. A similar case might be brought up to the Court, and depending on the facts of that case (say, an excessive fine, or a statement in a factual and debatable setting), the Court reserves every right to rule differently.

[Lord Dominator]

This decision is not precedent. A similar case might be brought up to the Court, and depending on the facts of that case (say, an excessive fine, or a statement in a factual and debatable setting), the Court reserves every right to rule differently.

My apologies

[The Realist Polities]

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?

So, are you more of a mendacious ignorant for believing that future criticism of Islam will NOT be attacked more often in blasphemy law states?

Are you more of a mendacious ignorant for believing that the ECHR will in the future contradict itself and allow people to remark the worst aspects of Islamic history?

Are you more of a mendacious ignorant for attacking someone who will expose the problem this ruling creates?

or

Are you more of a mendacious ignorant for believing that you will succeed in convincing people here of any of the previous?

[Olerand]

This decision is not precedent. A similar case might be brought up to the Court, and depending on the facts of that case (say, an excessive fine, or a statement in a factual and debatable setting), the Court reserves every right to rule differently.

My apologies

It's perfectly fine. The lack of precedent in civil law systems can be confusing for those unfamiliar with such a scheme. As long as one is willing to learn, then no harm is done.

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?

So, are you more of a mendacious ignorant for believing that future criticism of Islam will NOT be attacked more often in blasphemy law states?

Are you more of a mendacious ignorant for believing that the ECHR will in the future contradict itself and allow people to remark the worst aspects of Islamic history?

Are you more of a mendacious ignorant for attacking someone who will expose the problem this ruling creates?

or

Are you more of a mendacious ignorant for believing that you will succeed in convincing people here of any of the previous?

Yeah, none of this means anything. I am only pointing out that you are factually wrong in your understanding of civil law jurisdictions. It's not, as much as you want it to be, and as little as you understand it, like your country's common law.

[Greater Cesnica]

1984.

[The Realist Polities]

This decision is not precedent. A similar case might be brought up to the Court, and depending on the facts of that case (say, an excessive fine, or a statement in a factual and debatable setting), the Court reserves every right to rule differently.

Reeeeaaally?.......

So, in my ignorance, I must ignore that NO ECJ or national court judge EVER cited ECHR case law in their rulings.................... right?...

[Zapato]

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?

So, are you more of a mendacious ignorant for believing that future criticism of Islam will NOT be attacked more often in blasphemy law states?

Like Russia and Poland?

Not likely.

[Olerand]

1984.

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.

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

This decision is not precedent. A similar case might be brought up to the Court, and depending on the facts of that case (say, an excessive fine, or a statement in a factual and debatable setting), the Court reserves every right to rule differently.

Reeeeaaally?.......

So, in my ignorance, I must ignore that NO ECJ or national court judge EVER cited ECHR case law in their rulings.................... right?...

No you can site them. I never said otherwise. The ECJ's decision can take into consideration the ECHR's own rulings.

But again:

This decision is not precedent. A similar case might be brought up to the Court, and depending on the facts of that case (say, an excessive fine, or a statement in a factual and debatable setting), the Court reserves every right to rule differently.

[Lord Dominator]

1984.

Aside from the one mention in the OP, what per-chance does this have to do with the thread?

[The Realist Polities]

Yeah, none of this means anything. ...It's not, as much as you want it to be, and as little as you understand it, like your country's common law.

1. I happen to live in a civil law country. I am European.

2. Thank you for humiliating yourself by choosing to IGNORE REALITY.

As in, yeah... it kind of matters, it kind of will change things, cases of 'islamophobia' will get attacked more often and the ECHR won't contradict its own doctrine and the title is kind of true, but hey...

...if one can score points on principle.

[The Realist Polities]

Reeeeaaally?.......

So, in my ignorance, I must ignore that NO ECJ or national court judge EVER cited ECHR case law in their rulings.................... right?...

No you can site them. I never said otherwise. The ECJ's decision can take into consideration the ECHR's own rulings.

But again:

This decision is not precedent. A similar case might be brought up to the Court, and depending on the facts of that case (say, an excessive fine, or a statement in a factual and debatable setting), the Court reserves every right to rule differently.

You are just digging your hole deeper. stop.

[Olerand]

Yeah, none of this means anything. ...It's not, as much as you want it to be, and as little as you understand it, like your country's common law.

1. I happen to live in a civil law country. I am European.

2. Thank you for humiliating yourself by choosing to IGNORE REALITY.

As in, yeah... it kind of matters, it kind of will change things, cases of islamophobia will get attacked more often and the ECHR won't contradict its own doctrine and the title is kind of true, but hey...

...if one can score points on principle.

Then your lack of knowledge of your own country's legal code is very concerning. I would write to your political leaders and request mandatory legal education in schools.

Yeah, again, none of what you say matters. This ruling is entirely dependent on Austria, and in no way sets a precedent, or a pan-European blasphemy law, and particularly not one just for Islam, as the ECHR has previously ruled in favor of Christianity.

No you can site them. I never said otherwise. The ECJ's decision can take into consideration the ECHR's own rulings.

But again:

You are just digging your hole deeper. stop.

That you're so lacking in knowledge of your own legal code... Or perhaps of legal codes in general, is very concerning. Can you vote?

[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?

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

Key word here, used to. Not applicable to the modern world. Laws of the past have no bearing on modern society

[Lord Dominator]

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

Key word here, used to. Not applicable to the modern world. Laws of the past have no bearing on modern society

Or in this case, 'used' is a verb, as in the action of applying blasphemy laws to those who violate them, not a description of when the laws existed.

[Ifreann]

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

Key word here, used to. Not applicable to the modern world.

Are you having a fucking laugh?

Laws of the past have no bearing on modern society

Laws of now do.

[Olerand]

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

Key word here, used to. Not applicable to the modern world. Laws of the past have no bearing on modern society

You should let Vienna know. I agree, this law is absurd. Which is why we, in France, subject to the ECHR, don't have it.

[Australian rePublic]

Key word here, used to. Not applicable to the modern world.

Are you having a fucking laugh?

Laws of the past have no bearing on modern society

Laws of now do.

In which part of the European Union is it illegal to blaspheme against Christianity in the modern world?

[Lord Dominator]

Are you having a fucking laugh?


Laws of now do.

In which part of the European Union is it illegal to blaspheme against Christianity in the modern world?

Presumably Austria

[Ifreann]

Are you having a fucking laugh?


Laws of now do.

In which part of the European Union is it illegal to blaspheme against Christianity in the modern world?

[Dazchan]

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

Key word here, used to. Not applicable to the modern world. Laws of the past have no bearing on modern society

Germany prosecuted someone as recently as February 2016

Also, the Greek blasphemy laws specifically apply only to the Greek Orthodox Church, which I’m sure you are aware, is a Christian Church.

Malta criminalises vilification of the Roman Catholic Church, and prosecuted over 600 people for it as recently as 2008.

Poland prosecuted a singer named Doda in 2012.

Spain also prosecuted Javier Krahe in 2012.

And of course, let’s not forget the trouble Stephen Fry got in when he spoke against the Catholic Church in Ireland.