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.

[Old_Geezer]

Yet to check link but, agreeing that a law has been correctly applied differs from agreeing with the law as it stands. I'll go check the OP link now.

[Old_Geezer]

I'm unsure one can call something disparaging or insulting if the evidence suggests it's true. So it seems a strange verdict.

[jno]

OG, what is the evidence that Mohammed “liked to do it with children”?

[jackthehat]

I have to agree with ECHR; as the final arbiter of whether a Law has been properly applied, or not (it doesn't have to be a good law, or a sensible law) it has ruled that the Austrians have properly applied their own Law.
There should be room to have grown-up, sensible discussions on the 'rise' of Islam and the implications it holds for Europe. Jumping in with both feet (one of them obviously in her mouth) and labelling Mohammed as a paedophile rather strangles the ability to have that sensible, grown-up debate.
Anyone who knows anything about Islam knows about his child 'bride' and to focus on that reduces the ability to broaden the debate onto the whys and wherefores of the religion.

[Old_Geezer]

I take the article linked to, to be true, didn't say there that it wasn't.

[jno]

I take the article linked to, to be true

rash.

[Old_Geezer]

Not really; she made the comment, the paper didn't deny the 'marriage' nor consumation. Even here on AB the more knowledgeable state that Islam knows about Mohammed's child 'bride'. Seems fairly safe to accept that bit. Unless, of course, he didn't want to consummate but thought it was an unfortunate job but someone had to do it. From what I read here one could have applied the accusation to the whole of that society as a group, since it seems to have been accepted as normal.

[jno]

the Express is not in the business of investigating anything much these days; its staffing levels are minuscule. It's certainly not going to raise questions about stories that conform with its own prejudices.

Still, I would like to hear more about the word "children".

[zebo]

Protecting both Human Rights and Freedom of Speech is a non-starter, as one contradicts the other.

[naomi24]

For the benefit of Zacs, danny, gromit, jackthehat and the rest of the confused, “The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (formally the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) is an international treaty to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe.” It was not established to uphold various laws in various countries. Therefore, for the purposes of the ECHR those laws are irrelevant.

In this instance this ruling raises the question, “Can religion claim human rights?”

I’ll leave that with you. Got to dash.

[vetuste_ennemi]

My post in the second of two deleted threads on this case last night:

//Re the same 22:41 post I, too, note the absence so far of a defence of the [ECHR} judgment.

I'll have a go.

Even though Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was factually correct what she said and how she said it would have had two bad outcomes. Firstly it would have deply offended Muslims who often claim to love their Prophet more than they love their own parents. Secondly it would have created an impression of Islam which would lead non-Muslims to view Islam, and by implication, its followers in a bad light. The heightened suspicion of Muslims would, in turn, lead to further anxiety in Austria's Muslim community. These are the key points made in the ruling, upholding "the right of others to have their religious feelings protected" and "preserving religious peace in Austria.".

This is a pretty low-grade defence. When Jim and Peter arrive they will give more sophisticated versions.//

Peter never disappoints, does he?

Also honorable mentions to other defenders of liberty and the judicial process to Gromit, Zac's Master, Jack the Hat, DannyK and JNO.

Does Peter remember (I doubt the others will) "Late you come, yet still you come"? Said by whom and to whom? And in what context?

[Togo]

"The Human Rights Commissions are based upon a false premise. This premise is that ordinary citizens are incapable of reason. They cannot read or hear information and judge its meaning or contents using their own reason. Therefore the content of what they read/hear must be governed by ...an elite. This elite is the bureaucracy, who alone have the capacity for reason and therefore, the knowledge of what is 'right and wrong'. This political structure, where the population is assumed to lack the capacity for reason, and only the governing class, the 'Philosopher-Kings' have that capacity is totalitarian. It's found in every totalitarian nation since and including Plato's Republic (with his Philosopher-Kings versus the peasantry)..all the way up to fascism and communism. They reject not only the capacity-to-reason among all people. They reject the Human Right To Reason among all people. Only they have the Right To Reason. this is not merely arrogance on their part. It is a clear action of denying us our freedom. The freedom to think, to critique, to analyze, to come to our own conclusions. So, they self-assume a 'heroic role' for themselves as Philosopher-Kings to rule over what we are allowed to read. The HRC's basic infrastructure is totalitarian; it is fascist/communist. Above all, its disdain and contempt for human beings is clear in its complete rejection of, its refusal of, the ability of rational thought amongst 'regular' (non-bureaucratic) human beings.""

[jackthehat]

You really ought to give details of the websites from which you cut and paste your contributions, Togo:

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/008477.html

[Gromit]

// Therefore, for the purposes of the ECHR those laws are irrelevant. //

Not really.
She was tried under Austrian Law and she lost. She Appealed and she lost again. She believed her Human Rights had been infringed, and she appealed to the ECHR. They decided they hadn’t and the original Austrian verdicts were correct.

[vetuste_ennemi]

From Peter's link. This is the ECHR judges giving the background to the case, speaking about the original judgment by the Austrian court:

"13. The statements which the court found incriminating were the following:
English translation:

“I./ 1. One of the biggest problems we are facing today is that Muhammad is seen as the ideal man, the perfect human, the perfect Muslim. That means that the highest commandment for a male Muslim is to imitate Muhammad, to live his life. This does not happen according to our social standards and laws. Because he was a warlord, he had many women, to put it like this, and liked to do it with children. And according to our standards he was not a perfect human. We have huge problems with that today, that Muslims get into conflict with democracy and our value system ...

2. The most important of all Hadith collections recognised by all legal schools: The most important is the Sahih Al-Bukhari. If a Hadith was quoted after Bukhari, one can be sure that all Muslims will recognise it. And, unfortunately, in Al-Bukhari the thing with Aisha and child sex is written..{That Mohammed married Aisha when she was six and consummated the marriage when she was nine].

...

14. The Regional Court found that the above statements essentially conveyed the message that Muhammad had had paedophilic tendencies. It stated that the applicant was referring to a marriage which Muhammad had concluded with Aisha, a six-year old, and consummated when she had been nine. The court found that by making the statements the applicant had suggested that Muhammad was not a worthy subject of worship. However, it also found that it could not be established that the applicant had intended to decry all Muslims. She was not suggesting that all Muslims were paedophiles, but was criticising the unreflecting imitation of a role model. According to the court, the common definition of paedophilia was a primary sexual interest in children who had not yet reached puberty. Because paedophilia was behaviour which was ostracised by society and outlawed, it was evident that the applicant’s statements were capable of causing indignation. The court concluded that the applicant had intended to wrongfully[i accuse Muhammad of having paedophilic tendencies. Even though criticising child marriages was justifiable, she had accused a subject of religious worship of having a [i]primary] sexual interest in children’s bodies, which she had deduced from his marriage with a child, disregarding the notion that the marriage had continued until the Prophet’s death, when Aisha had already turned eighteen and had therefore passed the age of puberty. In addition, the court found that because of the public nature of the seminars, which had not been limited to members of the Freedom Party, it was conceivable that at least some of the participants might have been disturbed by the statements."

So Sabaditsch-Wolff's accusation of paedophilia was wrong not because Mohammed had sex with a nine-year old (this fact is agreed), but because sex with a nine-year old is not the regional court's definition of paedophilia.

[Togo]

//You really ought to give details of the websites from which you cut and paste your contributions, Togo: //

Don't be daft. I like to know that the luvvies and libbies are reading it, instead of dismissing a link out of hand because of where it is sourced rather than what is being said. :))

[THECORBYLOON]

The ECHR is the Court that decides if legislation or actions are contrary to the Convention. That means that countries' legislation is relevant.

[Togo]

Plus I have got people like yourself accessing the websites and being profiled by the information gatherers. :))

[vetuste_ennemi]

Peter might tell us why the blatantly false judgment of the regional court was upheld by the appellate court.

[fender62]

she told the truth though, her crime is.. she said in open seminars