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

[Neoliberal Vampires]

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.

The idea that my post that you have taken issue with isn't sufficiently clear that it was in response to what the OP wrote is also just your opinion. But as you're the only person thus far to openly acknowledge that they didn't understand it, well, I'm not especially put out by that. You didn't understand? That's ok. You don't have to.

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.

It sounds almost like an incentive to get violent when criticised, because then it provides a legal basis to prevent criticism.

[Kaggeceria]

"He wasn't a pedophile. He just married a 6-year old."

The eternal state of Europe.

[Shofercia]

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.

The idea that my post that you have taken issue with isn't sufficiently clear that it was in response to what the OP wrote is also just your opinion. But as you're the only person thus far to openly acknowledge that they didn't understand it, well, I'm not especially put out by that. You didn't understand? That's ok. You don't have to.

Ah yes, the "wisdom" of someone struggling with forum norms is most definitely too tough for a forum veteran to understand. Thanks for informing NSG. Going forward, is the rather lame "you didn't understand me" excuse going to be a trend for you? Once again, your quote:

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

You are, very clearly, talking about her actions, the very same actions that took place in Austria's capital city, which would most likely be a proper forum. Even if one magically believes that the quote is in response to the OP, the quote still talks about her specific actions. Furthermore, the first sentence mentions Russia. There are more cities in Russia than Grozny. Here is the post that explains why her action would be better received in Russia: viewtopic.php?p=34822584#p34822584

And yes, that is true even if Balt's post is taken into account. In both of his examples, the people being sued entered an Orthodox Church with the intent to troll. Whether or not punishing that is good or bad, is a debate for another time. The other link is just poor journalism on HuffPo's part. The Russian news, AIF, actually investigated the story: http://www.aif.ru/society/law/delo_est_ ... a_krasnova

Секундочку, скажете вы, если в конфликте участвовал Колосов, то почему под суд попал Краснов. Дело в том, что Виктор Краснов общается в соцсетях под именем «Виктора Колосова»... Судят Краснова не за то, что «Боха нет!)», а за вполне сознательные оскорбления и ненормативную лексику.
Правда, адвокат Сабинин говорит, что потерпевшие до обращения в суд старательно почистили свою часть переписки, поэтому нет полной картины происходящего. Это, однако, не отменяет того факта, что Виктор Краснов выражений не выбирал, советуя недовольным обращаться в суд. Так что в известной степени его пожелание реализовалось.

Long story short, he was sued not for writing "there is no God" as Balt's chosen article mistakenly alleges, but for trolling online using a fake identity, that might have gotten someone else into hot water, as the fake identity he chose is a popular name in Russia. And he was telling those whom he trolled, to sue him, or rather the person that he might have been impersonating. Looks like he got his wish. The trolling was not just limited to religious matters, and was certainly the type that might have led to SWATTING, which is bad.

The specific actions taken by this lady, speaking out against a prophet in an open forum in the capital, would not have gotten her fined in Russia. Whether it is a response to the OP or not, the claim that she would've been punished in Russia for her specific actions, is, quite simply, total and utter bullshit.

[Shofercia]

"He wasn't a pedophile. He just married a 6-year old."

The eternal state of Europe.

You're not in Austria, are you?

[Panslavicland]

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 Strasbourg, had imposed a unilateral blasphemy law on me.

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

It's not surprising given the direction Europe has been changing or the role of the judges on this court who often rule in ways like this to my understanding. Russia has been freer than western Europe for a long time before this though. It is there that blasphemy laws actually serve to protect people's religious freedoms and not to persecute them for presenting facts about Islam.

[Vistulange]

The joints some people smoke, I swear...

I'm backing that proposal to have a civil law paywall. Common law country people: Precedent is not a thing in civil law. It's literally not a thing. I'll say it again: Precedent isn't a thing in civil law.

You can't go and say "your honour, you decided x in this y case, which is similar to our current case", because he can just go "uh, okay" and give another ruling based off of the codified law at the time.

The ECtHR upheld the Austrian law as being compliant with the ECHR. It's kind of amazing how the alt-right are flocking to bash the court which literally said "Austria's own, national, sovereign law is fine, there's no need to interfere" when they spend half their waking hours bashing institutions for doing the exact opposite.

Make your bloody minds up: Do you want national sovereignty to be affirmed, or not? Sheesh.

[Kaggeceria]

"He wasn't a pedophile. He just married a 6-year old."

The eternal state of Europe.

You're not in Austria, are you?

No.

Why do you ask?

[DARGLED]

That is unacceptable.
This is beyond absurd.

[The Grims]

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

"Satan is evil !"

You blasphemer ! Pay this fine !

[Shofercia]

You're not in Austria, are you?

No.

Why do you ask?

I was messing around. The jocular implication was that you could be prosecuted for making that post in Austria, just to make fun of how ridiculous this whole case is.

[Vassenor]

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 Strasbourg, had imposed a unilateral blasphemy law on me.

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

It's not surprising given the direction Europe has been changing or the role of the judges on this court who often rule in ways like this to my understanding. Russia has been freer than western Europe for a long time before this though. It is there that blasphemy laws actually serve to protect people's religious freedoms and not to persecute them for presenting facts about Islam.

So once again someone doesn't bother reading the thread and all the places we pointed out the OP was full of lies.

[Frievolk]

It's almost a predictable pattern now.
*New Poster shows up in thread.*
*Reads OP, makes opinion, posts opinion*
*Literally every posted opinion is the same*
*Vass, Olerand, or someone else replies "READ THE THREAD OMG OP IS LYING"*
*New Poster shows up in thread*

[Lord Dominator]

Those would make for some rather odd statements of blasphemy

"Satan is evil !"

You blasphemer ! Pay this fine !

I was more thinking that only one of said religions has a central holy figure that verifiably existed (to my knowledge), and I dunno what one can have against Buddha

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

"Satan is evil !"

You blasphemer ! Pay this fine !

I was more thinking that only one of said religions has a central holy figure that verifiably existed (to my knowledge), and I dunno what one can have against Buddha

Good-for-nothing welfare queen that was.

[Olerand]

Oh. I had no idea Grozny was still a warzone. You're right, that's not a fair comparison.

It's not a war zone. It was a war zone less than two decades ago. Making jokes about Jews and pizza, in the US in 2018, isn't, (well at least it's highly unlikely,) going to start fights, or scare the shit out of someone. Making those jokes in Germany in the 1960s, would be extremely fucked up. People need time to heal. Again, I'm stunned that I have to explain these basic concepts.

It's been two decades. How long are we supposed to wait?

And comparing post-Nazi Germany's treatment of antisemitism and Chechnya's treatment of mockery of Islam... You sure you want to make that comparison?

It's almost a predictable pattern now.
*New Poster shows up in thread.*
*Reads OP, makes opinion, posts opinion*
*Literally every posted opinion is the same*
*Vass, Olerand, or someone else replies "READ THE THREAD OMG OP IS LYING"*
*New Poster shows up in thread*

It's unbelievable. Can a moderator change what is clearly an intentionally false OP?

[Forsher]

It's not a war zone. It was a war zone less than two decades ago. Making jokes about Jews and pizza, in the US in 2018, isn't, (well at least it's highly unlikely,) going to start fights, or scare the shit out of someone. Making those jokes in Germany in the 1960s, would be extremely fucked up. People need time to heal. Again, I'm stunned that I have to explain these basic concepts.

It's been two decades. How long are we supposed to wait?

And comparing post-Nazi Germany's treatment of antisemitism and Chechnya's treatment of mockery of Islam... You sure you want to make that comparison?

It's almost a predictable pattern now.
*New Poster shows up in thread.*
*Reads OP, makes opinion, posts opinion*
*Literally every posted opinion is the same*
*Vass, Olerand, or someone else replies "READ THE THREAD OMG OP IS LYING"*
*New Poster shows up in thread*

It's unbelievable. Can a moderator change what is clearly an intentionally false OP?

As I recall, they have changed thread titles but asking here is just posturing. There is nothing gained if nothing's ventured. And the worst that can happen if you ask in moderation is either you get a dickish reply or it's ignored. No-one is going to ban you for asking.

Maybe you've already asked but the only moderation thread I see is one asking about paedophilia... which, appropriately enough, is only a suppressed topic insofar as it is suppressed here partially because of players not reporting things they thought were reportable.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

It's been two decades. How long are we supposed to wait?

And comparing post-Nazi Germany's treatment of antisemitism and Chechnya's treatment of mockery of Islam... You sure you want to make that comparison?


It's unbelievable. Can a moderator change what is clearly an intentionally false OP?

As I recall, they have changed thread titles but asking here is just posturing. There is nothing gained if nothing's ventured. And the worst that can happen if you ask in moderation is either you get a dickish reply or it's ignored. No-one is going to ban you for asking.

Maybe you've already asked but the only moderation thread I see is one asking about paedophilia... which, appropriately enough, is only a suppressed topic insofar as it is suppressed here partially because of players not reporting things they thought were reportable.

idk why legitimate debate topics about historical figures should be suppressed.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I was more thinking that only one of said religions has a central holy figure that verifiably existed (to my knowledge), and I dunno what one can have against Buddha

Good-for-nothing welfare queen that was.

At least he is an image for the fat acceptance movement.

[Olerand]

As I recall, they have changed thread titles but asking here is just posturing. There is nothing gained if nothing's ventured. And the worst that can happen if you ask in moderation is either you get a dickish reply or it's ignored. No-one is going to ban you for asking.

Maybe you've already asked but the only moderation thread I see is one asking about paedophilia... which, appropriately enough, is only a suppressed topic insofar as it is suppressed here partially because of players not reporting things they thought were reportable.

idk why legitimate debate topics about historical figures should be suppressed.

Who's suppressing what? The OP is a flat out lie. You can debate the issue all you want, just not under the guise of a lie.

[Forsher]

idk why legitimate debate topics about historical figures should be suppressed.

Who's suppressing what? The OP is a flat out lie. You can debate the issue all you want, just not under the guise of a lie.

My post clearly states that paedophilia is a topic to be discussed within certain parameters and certain parameters only on NSG. It also directs anyone to seek out a moderation thread to understand it. This is that thread. Basically, tread lightly when discussing paedophilia on NSG unless you're sure of the rules' position on it which, personally, I am not hence why my points say tread lightly.

Incidentally, I can now see a thread asking about the thread's appropriateness so presumably we'll find out if the mods do actually edit titles etc. or if my recollection is mistaken.

[Olerand]

Who's suppressing what? The OP is a flat out lie. You can debate the issue all you want, just not under the guise of a lie.

My post clearly states that paedophilia is a topic to be discussed within certain parameters and certain parameters only on NSG. It also directs anyone to seek out a moderation thread to understand it. This is that thread. Basically, tread lightly when discussing paedophilia on NSG unless you're sure of the rules' position on it which, personally, I am not hence why my points say tread lightly.

Incidentally, I can now see a thread asking about the thread's appropriateness so presumably we'll find out if the mods do actually edit titles etc. or if my recollection is mistaken.

What? What does discussion of pedophilia have to do with this? My question is regarding the factually false OP and title about the ECHR.

[Panslavicland]

It's not surprising given the direction Europe has been changing or the role of the judges on this court who often rule in ways like this to my understanding. Russia has been freer than western Europe for a long time before this though. It is there that blasphemy laws actually serve to protect people's religious freedoms and not to persecute them for presenting facts about Islam.

So once again someone doesn't bother reading the thread and all the places we pointed out the OP was full of lies.

I read it. Nothing I said was wrong. In most of Europe there is a growing trend that just stating facts about Islam will get you prosecuted. And its not blasphemy laws that are the problem because they work fine in places like Russia and Greece. Its European police, governments and judges trying to push Islam on everyone else that is the problem.

[Olerand]

So once again someone doesn't bother reading the thread and all the places we pointed out the OP was full of lies.

I read it. Nothing I said was wrong. In most of Europe there is a growing trend that just stating facts about Islam will get you prosecuted. And its not blasphemy laws that are the problem because they work fine in places like Russia and Greece. Its European police, governments and judges trying to push Islam on everyone else that is the problem.

Is it? I trust you are European then. What's it like in your country?

[Panslavicland]

I read it. Nothing I said was wrong. In most of Europe there is a growing trend that just stating facts about Islam will get you prosecuted. And its not blasphemy laws that are the problem because they work fine in places like Russia and Greece. Its European police, governments and judges trying to push Islam on everyone else that is the problem.

Is it? I trust you are European then. What's it like in your country?

http://archbishopcranmer.com/met-police-criticism-islam-islamophobia/
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/05/uk-proposes-six-year-prison-sentence-for-criticizing-islam
https://republicstandard.com/sharia-uk-police-threaten-critics-of-islam-with-arrest/

This is normal now for most of Europe, only a few countries are not walking this path.

[Olerand]

Is it? I trust you are European then. What's it like in your country?

http://archbishopcranmer.com/met-police-criticism-islam-islamophobia/
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/05/uk-proposes-six-year-prison-sentence-for-criticizing-islam
https://republicstandard.com/sharia-uk-police-threaten-critics-of-islam-with-arrest/

This is normal now for most of Europe, only a few countries are not walking this path.

Anything from an actual news source?