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

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

I mean, if you're gonna do it for 1 religious figure, you might as well do it for all.

So who gets to say what counts as a "religious" figure and what doesn't?

[Frievolk]

I mean, if you're gonna do it for 1 religious figure, you might as well do it for all.

So who gets to say what counts as a "religious" figure and what doesn't?

The law, or rather a good attorney/lawyer.

[Neoliberal Vampires]

I mean, if you're gonna do it for 1 religious figure, you might as well do it for all.

So who gets to say what counts as a "religious" figure and what doesn't?

I feel like this should be within the capabilities of a modern legal system, but it raises the question of why specifically religious figures? People often feel as strongly about national and cultural figures. If public order is the reasoning why this law is allowed, then surely In some countries vilifying someone considered a national hero is probably also going to be similarly disruptive to public order.

[Bienenhalde]

Alright, so because liberals hate blasphemy laws they want to double down on them and make more religions illegal to criticize?

As far as I know no one in this thread as yet suggested blasphemy laws are a good thing

I am in favor of blasphemy laws, but then I am not a liberal either.

[Herskerstad]

I mean, if you're gonna do it for 1 religious figure, you might as well do it for all.

So who gets to say what counts as a "religious" figure and what doesn't?

That's one of the problems with the ECHR ruling. They can't effectively make a calling on what constitutes blasphemy without making a judgement on what constitutes sound theology or not. Now blasphemy has many descriptions but the one that I find to be the most fitting is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God. Muhammad is not God. The description given of the woman's insult was also notoriously lukewarm. Now it may be that her actual criticisms were a lot more coarse, but I don't see it as factually wrong to charge someone having sex with a nine year old to be a paedophile. The greatest issue of course is it shines a light on just how restrictive Europe is willing to allow their speech laws to be.

[Xadufell]

I mean, if you're gonna do it for 1 religious figure, you might as well do it for all.

So who gets to say what counts as a "religious" figure and what doesn't?

All who defame the God Emperor of Mankind are to be executed for HERESY

[The Grims]

So who gets to say what counts as a "religious" figure and what doesn't?

That's one of the problems with the ECHR ruling. They can't effectively make a calling on what constitutes blasphemy without making a judgement on what constitutes sound theology or not.

They do not have to - that is up to the individual country.
The ECHR ruling merely is that such blasphemy laws are allowed to exist.

[Xadufell]

That's one of the problems with the ECHR ruling. They can't effectively make a calling on what constitutes blasphemy without making a judgement on what constitutes sound theology or not.

They do not have to - that is up to the individual country.
The ECHR ruling merely is that such blasphemy laws are allowed to exist.

That doesn't set a good precedent, regardless.

[Sovaal]

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?

Said religion is pretty much built around said person. He's also been dead for over a millennia.

[Cantonese Union]

Russia is now officially freer than western Europe.

Yeah Russia's extremely broad law on "Offending the feelings of religious believers" is much better - ____ -

[The Grims]

Russia is now officially freer than western Europe.

Yeah Russia's extremely broad law on "Offending the feelings of religious believers" is much better - ____ -

And considering all the ECHR did is affirm that Austria has the right to have and enforce ancient blasphemy laws Russia apparantly has been more free for.. well.. centuries ?
How old is said law ?

[Likar]

I may be muslim, but this by far some of the most... You know what, its just dumb, that's all I am willing to say.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

So who gets to say what counts as a "religious" figure and what doesn't?

I feel like this should be within the capabilities of a modern legal system, but it raises the question of why specifically religious figures? People often feel as strongly about national and cultural figures. If public order is the reasoning why this law is allowed, then surely In some countries vilifying someone considered a national hero is probably also going to be similarly disruptive to public order.

Indeed. And those who get violent over simple statements of fact shouldn't be appeased anyway.

[Herskerstad]

That's one of the problems with the ECHR ruling. They can't effectively make a calling on what constitutes blasphemy without making a judgement on what constitutes sound theology or not.

They do not have to - that is up to the individual country.
The ECHR ruling merely is that such blasphemy laws are allowed to exist.

Which would have been fine, if the European Court of Human Rights would not have ruled that defaming the Prophet Muhammed “goes beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate." The defamation, being one found in many, though not all of Islam's oldest and most trusted sources, making the statement vague enough to validate all charges of critique presumably.

[Cantonese Union]

Yeah Russia's extremely broad law on "Offending the feelings of religious believers" is much better - ____ -

And considering all the ECHR did is affirm that Austria has the right to have and enforce ancient blasphemy laws Russia apparantly has been more free for.. well.. centuries ?
How old is said law ?

Austria's "ancient law against blasphemy" is in force since 1975. Russia introduced the law (which is stricter than Austria's law) in 2013, from the early 90s until 2013 it was an administrative offense. Not exactly centuries.

[Aclion]

So who gets to say what counts as a "religious" figure and what doesn't?

I feel like this should be within the capabilities of a modern legal system, but it raises the question of why specifically religious figures? People often feel as strongly about national and cultural figures. If public order is the reasoning why this law is allowed, then surely In some countries vilifying someone considered a national hero is probably also going to be similarly disruptive to public order.

More to the point it sends the message that if you are violent enough about your leaders being criticized the government will ban the criticism.

[Neoliberal Vampires]

I feel like this should be within the capabilities of a modern legal system, but it raises the question of why specifically religious figures? People often feel as strongly about national and cultural figures. If public order is the reasoning why this law is allowed, then surely In some countries vilifying someone considered a national hero is probably also going to be similarly disruptive to public order.

Indeed. And those who get violent over simple statements of fact shouldn't be appeased anyway.

I feel like this should be within the capabilities of a modern legal system, but it raises the question of why specifically religious figures? People often feel as strongly about national and cultural figures. If public order is the reasoning why this law is allowed, then surely In some countries vilifying someone considered a national hero is probably also going to be similarly disruptive to public order.

More to the point it sends the message that if you are violent enough about your leaders being criticized the government will ban the criticism.

I definitely agree, the message should be don't get violent over speech, rather than don't speak in case it turns violent.

[Page]

So who gets to say what counts as a "religious" figure and what doesn't?

I feel like this should be within the capabilities of a modern legal system, but it raises the question of why specifically religious figures? People often feel as strongly about national and cultural figures. If public order is the reasoning why this law is allowed, then surely In some countries vilifying someone considered a national hero is probably also going to be similarly disruptive to public order.

I am certain that one will ever face legal trouble for blaspheming/insult a Wiccan, a Taoist, a Buddhist, pagan, or satanist, that wouldn't even make the news.

[Lord Dominator]

I feel like this should be within the capabilities of a modern legal system, but it raises the question of why specifically religious figures? People often feel as strongly about national and cultural figures. If public order is the reasoning why this law is allowed, then surely In some countries vilifying someone considered a national hero is probably also going to be similarly disruptive to public order.

I am certain that one will ever face legal trouble for blaspheming/insult a Wiccan, a Taoist, a Buddhist, pagan, or satanist, that wouldn't even make the news.

Those would make for some rather odd statements of blasphemy

[Page]

I am certain that one will ever face legal trouble for blaspheming/insult a Wiccan, a Taoist, a Buddhist, pagan, or satanist, that wouldn't even make the news.

Those would make for some rather odd statements of blasphemy

But seriously, imagine if on social media I made an inflammatory statement like "Wicca is a cult of child-murdering perverted devil spawn and they sacrifice cats to Satan!" Realistically, do you think there is any chance any government or even any media source would even glance at it for a moment, much less being taken to court and given a fine for saying it? No way in hell.

Blasphemy laws are really just for the Abrahamic religions regardless of what they claim.

[Neoliberal Vampires]

Those would make for some rather odd statements of blasphemy

But seriously, imagine if on social media I made an inflammatory statement like "Wicca is a cult of child-murdering perverted devil spawn and they sacrifice cats to Satan!" Realistically, do you think there is any chance any government or even any media source would even glance at it for a moment, much less being taken to court and given a fine for saying it? No way in hell.

Blasphemy laws are really just for the Abrahamic religions regardless of what they claim.

I believe at least some blasphemy laws have official definitions of what religions can be blasphemed, which generally doesn't count those you listed except perhaps for Buddhism in places where its well established. I wonder if you might also be able to claim that the lesser prevalence of those religions means its not a public order problem to vilify them, which seems to be the justification used by some supporters of these laws.

[Page]

But seriously, imagine if on social media I made an inflammatory statement like "Wicca is a cult of child-murdering perverted devil spawn and they sacrifice cats to Satan!" Realistically, do you think there is any chance any government or even any media source would even glance at it for a moment, much less being taken to court and given a fine for saying it? No way in hell.

Blasphemy laws are really just for the Abrahamic religions regardless of what they claim.

I believe at least some blasphemy laws have official definitions of what religions can be blasphemed, which generally doesn't count those you listed except perhaps for Buddhism in places where its well established. I wonder if you might also be able to claim that the lesser prevalence of those religions means its not a public order problem to vilify them, which seems to be the justification used by some supporters of these laws.

The notion that blasphemy laws exist to preserve public order is IMO quite frightening, as it essentially rewards extra protection to those willing to respond with violence when their religion is insulted.

[Shofercia]

When posters respond to the OP, they usually do it in their first post. If they do not, then they make some kind of reference to the OP. This was not your first post. You also admitted that you thought that the OP lied. After responding to the OP, you responded to several posters, and then decided to do a hit and run on Russia, for which you were called out. Now you're heroically whining about how every post you make that doesn't quote anyone, is a magical response to the OP, and everyone on NSG is supposed to know that.

If someone was to genuinely talk about freedom, when comparing countries, they probably wouldn't limit themselves to a single example, since that would be foolish, but you, Neoliberal Vampries, seem to disagree. You actually thought that when I said you shouldn't use a single example to compare two countries, was comparing two countries. Lolwut?

I didn't argue that Russia was freer than Austria, or that Austria was freer than Russia. What I said was that you cannot use a single act to compare freedom ratings of two countries. (Yes NSG, I'm aware that there are exceptions, but this act ain't it.) Let me requote that part for you:



I'm not here to debate which country is freer, especially now with someone who's now claiming that every single post he makes in the thread that doesn't quote anyone is a response to the OP. Do you have evidence that Vienna is the strictest part of Austria? No, you do not. You even claim that she would've been treated that way in any other part of Austria, which I find idiotic, since a small farming village where people are struggling to survive, is probably not going to make a big deal out of her actions. Similarly, if you take the Graz Train Station, or other places where alleged economic migrants gathered, and preach about Muhammad being a pedophile, you might get a different treatment, perhaps a more physical one, than a mere fine. Areas with millions of people aren't monoliths. Damn, I have to explain several elementary school concepts in this thread.

But you are correct about one thing: you are not required to make factually correct posts, or even sane comparisons on NSG. You can make extremely ignorant posts, claim that every single post in the thread that doesn't quote anyone is a response to the OP, and misinterpret the very basic things that your fellow posters say.

My post that you took issue with was made in such a way that to most readers it should have been clear that it was in reference to OP's claim about Russia. I accept that some people might not have understood that, although as far as I'm aware its just you so far but I will also accept the possibility that others didn't either. I'm not going to hold it against you, I'm sure you aren't misunderstanding on purpose, but please understand that this is a public forum and I aim to write in a way that is meant to be understood by most users, and on occasion you might not be within that group.

Thus far that's just your opinion, the opinion of someone who thought that when I said that single incident, an incident that most people realize was fairly minor, is not enough to judge which country is freer, you somehow imagined that I was implying that Austria was freer than Russia. And feel free to hold it against me, you certainly didn't hold back on your snark when you thought I was wrong, but now that you're wrong, you're trying to sound oh so noble. It'd be hilarious, if it wasn't so pathetic.

[Shofercia]

I mean, if you're gonna do it for 1 religious figure, you might as well do it for all.

So who gets to say what counts as a "religious" figure and what doesn't?

No one. And it'd be moronic to claim that it should be within the capabilities of the modern legal system, because then it just becomes a numbers game. If we had one billion Pastafarians, they might hold Arne Niklas Jansson as some kind of idol. This is why blasphemy laws should be phased out, and they're wrong, irrespective of which country has them. What's next, the Cult of Guy Verhofstadt? If we're going to expand this to national and cultural figures, it'd be the Professional Offended Group on crack. No thanks.

God's all knowing and all powerful, so thinking that some little atheist, or some big atheist, is going to hurt God by saying mean words about God's messenger, is rather hilarious. I'm a religious person, but keep in mind that any religious law will get parodied by some group or another - so we should ask the question if we really need it, before promoting it. Especially since most Religious Laws will get distorted by the mainstream media, because they need a soundbite, and you cannot explain the context of a law that evolved over millenia in a soundbite.

[Shofercia]

So who gets to say what counts as a "religious" figure and what doesn't?

All who defame the God Emperor of Mankind are to be executed for HERESY

The Emperor Protects! (Mandatory 40k reference in a thread about ECHR achieved!)