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

[Frievolk]

You do, however, get prosecuted for "public actions clearly defying the society and committed with the express purpose of insulting religious beliefs" (an expression that here means 'insulting the Orthodox Church') as according to art.148 of Russian Criminal Code. (Of course, if that blasphemy includes desecration of holy symbols and (or) religious texts, your punishment will be more severe)

Which ensures that religious freedom is protected in Russia by punishing those who would violate it.

In other words, Blasphemy laws do exist in Russia.
I'm sorry, did you mean "why would I get prosecuted for insulting Muslims?"

[Vassenor]

You do, however, get prosecuted for "public actions clearly defying the society and committed with the express purpose of insulting religious beliefs" (an expression that here means 'insulting the Orthodox Church') as according to art.148 of Russian Criminal Code. (Of course, if that blasphemy includes desecration of holy symbols and (or) religious texts, your punishment will be more severe)

Which ensures that religious freedom is protected in Russia by punishing those who would violate it.

Which means it is in fact a crime in Russia to criticise Islam.

[Olerand]

Which ensures that religious freedom is protected in Russia by punishing those who would violate it.

In other words, Blasphemy laws do exist in Russia.
I'm sorry, did you mean "why would I get prosecuted for insulting Muslims?"

Yes. He believes using the phone in church is a jail-time worthy offense. But being fined for saying Muhammad is a pedophile is a violation of the ECHR.

[Panslavicland]

Which ensures that religious freedom is protected in Russia by punishing those who would violate it.

Which means it is in fact a crime in Russia to criticise Islam.

Criticising Islam in Russia is fine, insulting religious beliefs is not.

[Second Empire of America]

The ruling does nothing like what people are saying it does. It is saying that the ECHR does not protect speech that is blasphemous to a religion. It does not institute blasphemy bans in EU member states that do not have them, and does not prevent EU member states from offering greater protections to free speech than the ECHR does.

[Frievolk]

Which means it is in fact a crime in Russia to criticise Islam.

Criticising Islam in Russia is fine, insulting religious beliefs is not.

You either don't understand what the expression "religious beliefs" means, or you're intentionally acting like an idiot.
Islam is a religious belief.

[Vassenor]

Which means it is in fact a crime in Russia to criticise Islam.

Criticising Islam in Russia is fine, insulting religious beliefs is not.

And calling Mohammed a paedophile specifically to offend isn't insulting someone's religious beliefs?

[Panslavicland]

Criticising Islam in Russia is fine, insulting religious beliefs is not.

And calling Mohammed a paedophile specifically to offend isn't insulting someone's religious beliefs?

No, its a legitimate criticism based on facts.

[Estanglia]

And calling Mohammed a paedophile specifically to offend isn't insulting someone's religious beliefs?

No, its a legitimate criticism based on facts.

I feel like Archregimancy's post is relevant here.

[Olerand]

The ruling does nothing like what people are saying it does. It is saying that the ECHR does not protect speech that is blasphemous to a religion. It does not institute blasphemy bans in EU member states that do not have them, and does not prevent EU member states from offering greater protections to free speech than the ECHR does.

Exactly. For further explanation:

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.

There isn't even precedent in civil law, so this isn't "case law".

[Frievolk]

The ruling does nothing like what people are saying it does. It is saying that the ECHR does not protect speech that is blasphemous to a religion. It does not institute blasphemy bans in EU member states that do not have them, and does not prevent EU member states from offering greater protections to free speech than the ECHR does.

Exactly. For further explanation:

This title is not at all what the ECHR did.

There isn't even precedent in civil law, so this isn't "case law".

From a legal standpoint, this statement is somewhat mistaken though.
There is precedent in Civil Law. It's just not as prevalent as it is in Common Law (which, barring exceptions, is ran almost completely by precedent, even at a constitutional level).
The Civil and Penal procedure both employ a level of precedent, especially for cases where the law isn't completely clear and the legislature has taken too long to fix it (in specific cases, changing one article of a Law can necessitate changing all of it.)
So, it shouldn't be said with that level of certainty that "there is no precedent in civil law". It's just that, you know, we have actual, written and short laws and don't need to refer to entire court cases for single situations.

This specific scenario doesn't even get to that. It's literally just reaffirmation to The Westphalian Decision at the most basic level (i.e. necessitating you can't enforce your laws on states with different ones) and I believe that has been stated in this thread repeatedly.

[Olerand]

Exactly. For further explanation:

There isn't even precedent in civil law, so this isn't "case law".

From a legal standpoint, this statement is somewhat mistaken though.
There is precedent in Civil Law. It's just not as prevalent as it is in Common Law (which, barring exceptions, is ran almost completely by precedent, even at a constitutional level).
The Civil and Penal procedure both employ a level of precedent, especially for cases where the law isn't completely clear and the legislature has taken too long to fix it (in specific cases, changing one article of a Law can necessitate changing all of it.)
So, it shouldn't be said with that level of certainty that "there is no precedent in civil law". It's just that, you know, we have actual, written and short laws and don't need to refer to entire court cases for single situations.

This specific scenario doesn't even get to that. It's literally just reaffirmation to The Westphalian Decision at the most basic level (i.e. necessitating you can't enforce your laws on states with different ones) and I believe that has been stated in this thread repeatedly.

Absolutely. Thank you for the clarification.

There is also, at least in France, the principle of jurisprudence constante, which in private law is determined by at least two published decisions by the Cour de Cassation. This of course is only applicable to a certain case with certain determined facts (and which is still changeable depending on further developments).

EDIT: Also, now that I think about it... The ECHR's decisions are binding only to States with good faith. It has no authority to ensure compliance with its rulings.

[Vassenor]

And calling Mohammed a paedophile specifically to offend isn't insulting someone's religious beliefs?

No, its a legitimate criticism based on facts.

That's not a thing you just get to arbitrarily get to decide though.

[Uxupox]

No, its a legitimate criticism based on facts.

That's not a thing you just get to arbitrarily get to decide though.

Marrying and "getting to know one" when they are at 9 years old tends to raise criticism from any sphere of life.

[Olerand]

That's not a thing you just get to arbitrarily get to decide though.

Marrying and "getting to know one" when they are at 9 years old tends to raise criticism from any sphere of life.

Definitely. But that's not what this woman said, and if she had a problem she should have worked to have Austria, whose government now includes her own party, to repeal its blasphemy law. The ECHR was doing what it should, which is recognize significant leeway for national jurisdictions.

[Uxupox]

Marrying and "getting to know one" when they are at 9 years old tends to raise criticism from any sphere of life.

Definitely. But that's not what this woman said, and if she had a problem she should have worked to have Austria, whose government now includes her own party, to repeal its blasphemy law. The ECHR was doing what it should, which is recognize significant leeway for national jurisdictions.

Didn't she state this though;

Muhammad “liked to do it with children,” the woman said during one of the seminars. “A 56-year-old and a 6-year-old? . . . What do we call it, if it is not pedophilia?”

I still don't even begin to comprehend how this should be regulated.

[Astoriya]

And calling Mohammed a paedophile specifically to offend isn't insulting someone's religious beliefs?

No, its a legitimate criticism based on facts.

You'd be hideously wrong there, son

[Olerand]

Definitely. But that's not what this woman said, and if she had a problem she should have worked to have Austria, whose government now includes her own party, to repeal its blasphemy law. The ECHR was doing what it should, which is recognize significant leeway for national jurisdictions.

Didn't she state this though;

Muhammad “liked to do it with children,” the woman said during one of the seminars. “A 56-year-old and a 6-year-old? . . . What do we call it, if it is not pedophilia?”

I still don't even begin to comprehend how this should be regulated.

The Austrian courts ruled that she didn't say it in a neutral tone, nor in a debatable setting, and with the intent to injure. The ECHR upheld that.

I find that stupid, blasphemy laws are relics of a bygone era. But that's on Austria, not Strasbourg.

[Uxupox]

Didn't she state this though;



I still don't even begin to comprehend how this should be regulated.

The Austrian courts ruled that she didn't say it in a neutral tone, nor in a debatable setting, and with the intent to injure. The ECHR upheld that.

I find that stupid, blasphemy laws are relics of a bygone era. But that's on Austria, not Strasbourg.

Honestly the ruling doesn't even make sense.

[Frievolk]

No, its a legitimate criticism based on facts.

You'd be hideously wrong there, son

I mean, he's not wrong in saying that woman's statement is supported by facts (well, for one definition of it. Most contemporary sources hint that Aisha was 9 in Qamari Years (which is about, give or take, 8 and 9 months in normal calendars) when her marriage with the 56 years old Muhammad was consummated.).
Whether or not her statement was criticism or just "want to piss off some Muslims lel" is a different matter tho

[Olerand]

The Austrian courts ruled that she didn't say it in a neutral tone, nor in a debatable setting, and with the intent to injure. The ECHR upheld that.

I find that stupid, blasphemy laws are relics of a bygone era. But that's on Austria, not Strasbourg.

Honestly the ruling doesn't even make sense.

You're welcome to write to the Austrian government.

[Astoriya]

You'd be hideously wrong there, son

I mean, he's not wrong in saying that woman's statement is supported by facts (well, for one definition of it. Most contemporary sources hint that Aisha was 9 in Qamari Years (which is about, give or take, 8 and 9 months in normal calendars) when her marriage with the 56 years old Muhammad was consummated.).
Whether or not her statement was criticism or just "want to piss off some Muslims lel" is a different matter tho

Err, sources such as?

[Shofercia]

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?

Actually, it hasn't. The insurgency phase of the war ended in 2009. I'm against blasphemy laws, but I have no issues with harsher punishment to prevent future warfare in areas that just had warfare. Have you lived in a war zone, not as a soldier, but as a civilian? Chechnya went through 15 years of warfare, including the insurgency phase. An entire generation grew up with quite a few gunfire deaths. Rape was legal from 1996 to 1999. So if someone's free speech rights are violated in that specific region, boo fucking hoo. Crimea River. Preventing rape and murder is more important in my book.

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?

My point was that if someone lived through WWII, lived in fear of being murdered with men wearing certain symbols, it's ok to tell said men to stop wearing those symbols. And if they do, throw them in jail. Nazis started WWII. They don't get to whine about free speech after attempting to enslave the World, at least not in Europe. The United States is different, because the last truly massive war on US soil, was the Civil War.

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?

Ahhh yes, clearly misleading OPs on NSG are going to cause massive violence against Muslims in Europe /sarcasm

[Uxupox]

Honestly the ruling doesn't even make sense.

You're welcome to write to the Austrian government.

Why would they care about a foreigner?

[Olerand]

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

Actually, it hasn't. The insurgency phase of the war ended in 2009. I'm against blasphemy laws, but I have no issues with harsher punishment to prevent future warfare in areas that just had warfare. Have you lived in a war zone, not as a soldier, but as a civilian? Chechnya went through 15 years of warfare, including the insurgency phase. An entire generation grew up with quite a few gunfire deaths. Rape was legal from 1996 to 1999. So if someone's free speech rights are violated in that specific region, boo fucking hoo. Crimea River. Preventing rape and murder is more important in my book.

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?

My point was that if someone lived through WWII, lived in fear of being murdered with men wearing certain symbols, it's ok to tell said men to stop wearing those symbols. And if they do, throw them in jail. Nazis started WWII. They don't get to whine about free speech after attempting to enslave the World, at least not in Europe. The United States is different, because the last truly massive war on US soil, was the Civil War.

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

Ahhh yes, clearly misleading OPs on NSG are going to cause massive violence against Muslims in Europe /sarcasm

It's 2018. The war is over.

Except in this case, the law is prosecuting Jews.

Yeah, I don't subscribe to the liberal wet dream of an imminent European pogrom of Muslims. Though this might come as a shock to you, I don't enjoy OPs and titles that are factually false.

You're welcome to write to the Austrian government.

Why would they care about a foreigner?

They probably wouldn't. But if you think the decision is stupid (which it is), that is your only recourse.