E C H R Rules Insulting Religion Is A Criminal Offence ….

[naomi24]

….after a woman who called the Prophet Mohammed a paedophile had her conviction upheld.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1036685/european-court-human-rights-religion-insult-crime-islam

I’ve had a quick look and it appears that laws relating to blasphemy – albeit rather vaguely in some instances – are still in existence in some European countries.

One would have hoped that the ECHR – reputedly the doyen of fairness and good judgement - would be in full support of freedom of speech and expression for all, but clearly not. Worrying? I think so.

[naomi24]

//But she knew it wasn’t right ....//

It wasn't?

[Zacs-Master]

Morally or technically?

[naomi24]

You tell me. You're the one claiming it wasn't right.

[dannyk13]

Naomi, it was against the law.

[youngmafbog]

It's clear from the pro EU supporters on here, and Gromits comment on another thread that this is simply to silence those that disagree with the EU project of diluting the population with immigrants.

And, can someone define the term 'far right' please as it seems these days to be anyone who disagrees with the left wing liberal 'elite'?

[naomi24]

danny, I know.

[Zacs-Master]

I think a few of us are confused at your knowing it was against the law but protesting about the upholding of that law.

[dannyk13]

YMB
https://www.definitions.net/definition/far-right%20politics

[naomi24]

zacs, your confusion never surprises me.

[Zacs-Master]

Nor your diversary tactics, N ;-)

[youngmafbog]

Thank you Danny, so anyone right of center is far right.

Hey ho. I'm far right then.

[youngmafbog]

"I think a few of us are confused at your knowing it was against the law but protesting about the upholding of that law. "

Just because something is against the law doesnt mean the law is right - especially these days with the liberal elite and EUSSR seeking to clamp down on anyone voicing decent.

[Zacs-Master]

I already said that YMB. I think Naomi’s question should have been along those lines (ie aimed at the country of origin rather than he ECHR). A subtle but important point which has seen her trying to wriggle out of a situation she put herself in via a poor OP.

[youngmafbog]

But surely this is about how the ECHR has chosen to interpret it so making the law that was ambiguous before now?

So Naomis OP is very relevant.

[Zacs-Master]

There was nothing ambiguous about the law. It was applied and the woman charged and sentenced.
‘She was convicted for insulting the religion in February 2011 by the Vienna Regional Criminal Court’
The ECHR only became involved when she appealed. And lost.

[youngmafbog]

Did you know black is actually white?

[Gromit]

Ymb,
// The Freedom Party of Austria [to which she belonged] was founded in 1956 by Anton Reinthaller, a former Nazi functionary and SS officer. //

Meets my criteria for being ‘far right’.

[Zacs-Master]

What are you talking about, YMB? The law is the law (in that country).

[Gromit]

Ymb,
// so making the law that was ambiguous before now? //

Nah, there was no amibuity, it was perfectly clear.

The ECHR upheld the judgement of the applied Austian Law. If they had gone against the state law then there would be a case for attacking the ECHR (which is what you and Naomi really want to do), but they agreed with the State law, so any attack is groundless.

[jno]

E C H R Rules Insulting Religion Is A Criminal Offence

that's because it is a criminal offence in Austria. She'd been convicted in a lower court, confirmed by an appeal court and then by the supreme court. The EHCR simply said the courts had followed the rules.

You're barking up a completely wrong tree.