Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
E C H R Rules Insulting Religion Is A Criminal Offence ….
….after a woman who called the Prophet Mohammed a paedophile had her conviction upheld.
https:/
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.
https:/
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.
Answers
'The first problem of the European Court of Human Rights decision against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-
11:36 Tue 20th Nov 2018
//The ECHR is the Court that decides if legislation or actions are contrary to the Convention. That means that countries' legislation is relevant//
Which means that a legal judgment by a signatory country can be overturned if "contrary", doesn't it, Corby? As in "you can't deport him , he'll be separated from his cat"
Which means that a legal judgment by a signatory country can be overturned if "contrary", doesn't it, Corby? As in "you can't deport him , he'll be separated from his cat"
I see.....I just wondered whether it was some sort of ploy or just sheer hypocrisy.....
///Togo - Oh really? Is this the same "OP" who takes the non de plume that is exactly the same as a far left momentum mouthpiece and even uses an avatar that is their logo? [i] Is this the same "OP" that was fond of copying and pasting whole tranches of their output, without posting a link (no doubt in order to falsely display clever thought) until caught bang to rights? Meehh. [i] The rabid left have shot their bolt. After decades of dominating the web, and sadly our mainstream media, the people who abhor their duplicity have awoken. They have stopped shrugging their shoulders and doing the windy finger by the temple sign in the hope that they will have to see common sense in the end, whilst getting on with a productive life, and started to push back before it is too late. How it confuses the libtards and luvvies.///
*my italics*
///Togo - Oh really? Is this the same "OP" who takes the non de plume that is exactly the same as a far left momentum mouthpiece and even uses an avatar that is their logo? [i] Is this the same "OP" that was fond of copying and pasting whole tranches of their output, without posting a link (no doubt in order to falsely display clever thought) until caught bang to rights? Meehh. [i] The rabid left have shot their bolt. After decades of dominating the web, and sadly our mainstream media, the people who abhor their duplicity have awoken. They have stopped shrugging their shoulders and doing the windy finger by the temple sign in the hope that they will have to see common sense in the end, whilst getting on with a productive life, and started to push back before it is too late. How it confuses the libtards and luvvies.///
*my italics*
More from the ECHR background (with stress added by VE - I hope):
//18. The Court of Appeal stated that the reason for the applicant’s conviction had not been that the events had purportedly taken place more than a thousand years ago and similar conduct would no longer be tolerable under today’s criminal law and contemporary moral and value concepts, but because the applicant had accused Muhammad of paedophilia by using the plural form “children”, “child sex”, “what do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?” without providing evidence that his primary sexual interest in Aisha had been her not yet having reached puberty. Moreover, there were no reliable sources for that allegation, as no documentary evidence existed to suggest that his other wives or concubines had been similarly young. On the contrary, his first wife had been fifteen years older than him, as could be seen from the documents submitted by the applicant herself. Even if the applicant had had the right to criticise others’ attempts to imitate Muhammad, her statements showed her intention to unnecessarily disparage and deride Muslims.//
Wel, well, well.
"Look, your Honour, I only did it with one nine year old. To be honest I prefer older women on the whole.".
As for the rest, it could have been copied from any Islamic web-site. Khadija (the older women) was his boss when he was a young man on the make, and long before he had his first "revelation".
//18. The Court of Appeal stated that the reason for the applicant’s conviction had not been that the events had purportedly taken place more than a thousand years ago and similar conduct would no longer be tolerable under today’s criminal law and contemporary moral and value concepts, but because the applicant had accused Muhammad of paedophilia by using the plural form “children”, “child sex”, “what do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?” without providing evidence that his primary sexual interest in Aisha had been her not yet having reached puberty. Moreover, there were no reliable sources for that allegation, as no documentary evidence existed to suggest that his other wives or concubines had been similarly young. On the contrary, his first wife had been fifteen years older than him, as could be seen from the documents submitted by the applicant herself. Even if the applicant had had the right to criticise others’ attempts to imitate Muhammad, her statements showed her intention to unnecessarily disparage and deride Muslims.//
Wel, well, well.
"Look, your Honour, I only did it with one nine year old. To be honest I prefer older women on the whole.".
As for the rest, it could have been copied from any Islamic web-site. Khadija (the older women) was his boss when he was a young man on the make, and long before he had his first "revelation".
//A second look at the question; was Muhammad a pedophile? One of the most disturbing things about Islam is that it does not categorically condemn pedophilia. Indeed, it cannot, for to do so would draw attention to the pedophilia of Muhammad, the founder of Islam. Many Muslims cannot condemn pedophilia even if they would like to, for they would have to abandon Islam. Muslims tacitly approve of pedophilia, even if they are embarrassed to say so. So mesmerized are Muslims by the example of Muhammad's pedophilia that they are unable to categorically denounce pedophilia or feel shame. It is prevalent in many Muslim countries disguised as child marriage. The UN is today trying to stop the evil of child marriage among the backward Islamic regions of Asia and Africa. The future of some 300 million young girls depends on it. //
https:/
:))
https:/
:))
Still on the ECHR ruling. Now we've got to the Supreme Court (still in Austria):
//21. On 11 December 2013 the Supreme Court... found that the applicant’s conviction under Article 188... constituted an interference with the right to freedom of expression, which had however been justified[i ....because...the aim of the interference had been to protect religious peace and the religious [i]feelings[i] of others and was therefore legitimate. The Court had stated many times that in the context of religion member States had a duty to suppress certain forms of conduct or expression that were [i]gratuitously] offensive to others and profane. In cases where the impugned statements not only offended or shocked, or expressed a “provocative” opinion, but had also been considered an abusive attack on a religious group – for example an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam, as in the applicant’s case – a criminal conviction might be necessary to protect the freedom of religion of others....the principles ... to be considered [were] whether a statement was capable of “arousing justified indignation”...The courts therefore had to examine the meaning of the impugned statement, as well as the context in which it had been made and whether this statement was based on fact, or was a value judgment. Only by considering all of those points could the question of the ability to arouse justified indignation be examined.
22. Applying the above considerations to the applicant’s case, the Supreme Court held that she had not aimed to contribute to a serious debate about Islam or ...child marriage, but merely to defame Muhammad by accusing him of a specific sexual preference, based on the assumption that he had had sexual intercourse with a prepubescent child, in order to show that he was not a worthy subject of worship..the applicant had not contributed to a debate of general interest, because she had made her allegation primarily in order to defame Muhammad...the Supreme Court held that they had no longer been a contribution to a serious debate....the criminal conviction constituted a measure necessary in a democratic[!} society within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention.//
Do you see a degree of elasticity in the formulation of these hate-speech laws and in their possible interpretation?
What was the artist's intention here? Was it to "defame" Christ? Further, might it hurt peoples' "religious feelings"? Might it be considered "gratuitously offensive"? Or "profane". Might it be capable of arousing "justifiable indignation"?
https:/
//21. On 11 December 2013 the Supreme Court... found that the applicant’s conviction under Article 188... constituted an interference with the right to freedom of expression, which had however been justified[i ....because...the aim of the interference had been to protect religious peace and the religious [i]feelings[i] of others and was therefore legitimate. The Court had stated many times that in the context of religion member States had a duty to suppress certain forms of conduct or expression that were [i]gratuitously] offensive to others and profane. In cases where the impugned statements not only offended or shocked, or expressed a “provocative” opinion, but had also been considered an abusive attack on a religious group – for example an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam, as in the applicant’s case – a criminal conviction might be necessary to protect the freedom of religion of others....the principles ... to be considered [were] whether a statement was capable of “arousing justified indignation”...The courts therefore had to examine the meaning of the impugned statement, as well as the context in which it had been made and whether this statement was based on fact, or was a value judgment. Only by considering all of those points could the question of the ability to arouse justified indignation be examined.
22. Applying the above considerations to the applicant’s case, the Supreme Court held that she had not aimed to contribute to a serious debate about Islam or ...child marriage, but merely to defame Muhammad by accusing him of a specific sexual preference, based on the assumption that he had had sexual intercourse with a prepubescent child, in order to show that he was not a worthy subject of worship..the applicant had not contributed to a debate of general interest, because she had made her allegation primarily in order to defame Muhammad...the Supreme Court held that they had no longer been a contribution to a serious debate....the criminal conviction constituted a measure necessary in a democratic[!} society within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention.//
Do you see a degree of elasticity in the formulation of these hate-speech laws and in their possible interpretation?
What was the artist's intention here? Was it to "defame" Christ? Further, might it hurt peoples' "religious feelings"? Might it be considered "gratuitously offensive"? Or "profane". Might it be capable of arousing "justifiable indignation"?
https:/
here's a little background info
https:/
https:/
VE regarding your comment about deportation and a cat,'[Theresa May]said: "We all know the stories... about the illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because, and I am not making this up, he had a pet cat."
Within minutes, a spokesman for the Judicial Office at the Royal Courts of Justice, which issues statements on behalf of senior judges, said: "This was a case in which the Home Office conceded that they had mistakenly failed to apply their own policy - applying at that time to that appellant - for dealing with unmarried partners of people settled in the UK.
"That was the basis for the decision to uphold the original tribunal decision - the cat had nothing to do with the decision."'
Within minutes, a spokesman for the Judicial Office at the Royal Courts of Justice, which issues statements on behalf of senior judges, said: "This was a case in which the Home Office conceded that they had mistakenly failed to apply their own policy - applying at that time to that appellant - for dealing with unmarried partners of people settled in the UK.
"That was the basis for the decision to uphold the original tribunal decision - the cat had nothing to do with the decision."'
-- answer removed --
I refer back to my question at 10:20 Sat. Can religion claim human rights? The ECHR is not responsible for ensuring that individual laws are upheld but for safeguarding the human rights of citizens. Therefore, in my opinion, the ECHR has in this instance not only failed in its duty, but has grossly overstepped its remit.
The appeal was based on the infringement of her rights under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights quoted in the ECHR ruling kindly provided by Peter Pedant:
"Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression...
2. The exercise of these freedoms... may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by [domestic] law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of...national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others..."
Part of the ECHR summary (Section 57 in the PP document) supporting the conviction in the Austrian courts:
" The Court, in conclusion, finds that... the domestic courts... assessed the wider context of the applicant’s statements... balanced her right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and to have religious peace preserved in Austrian society. They discussed the permissible limits of criticism of religious doctrines versus their disparagement, and found that the applicant’s statements had been likely to arouse justified indignation in Muslims. In addition, the Court considers that the impugned statements were not phrased in a neutral manner aimed at being an objective contribution to a public debate concerning child Marriages... but amounted to a generalisation without factual basis[!]... going beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate and classifying them as an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam... capable of stirring up prejudice and putting at risk religious peace."
So we know what free speech means in today's E urope, don't we?
"Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression...
2. The exercise of these freedoms... may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by [domestic] law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of...national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others..."
Part of the ECHR summary (Section 57 in the PP document) supporting the conviction in the Austrian courts:
" The Court, in conclusion, finds that... the domestic courts... assessed the wider context of the applicant’s statements... balanced her right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and to have religious peace preserved in Austrian society. They discussed the permissible limits of criticism of religious doctrines versus their disparagement, and found that the applicant’s statements had been likely to arouse justified indignation in Muslims. In addition, the Court considers that the impugned statements were not phrased in a neutral manner aimed at being an objective contribution to a public debate concerning child Marriages... but amounted to a generalisation without factual basis[!]... going beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate and classifying them as an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam... capable of stirring up prejudice and putting at risk religious peace."
So we know what free speech means in today's E urope, don't we?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.