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.

[-Talbot-]

Good luck, naomi

[Spungle]

Wasn't he a paedo then?

[naomi24]

A serious issue, Talbot .... in my opinion. Whose rights is the ECHR defending? Certainly not the equal right of everyone to voice their own opinions.

[douglas9401]

It was ever so.
Somebody will be along shortly to drop in 'fire in a crowded theatre' and clarify things for those of us a bit slow on the uptake.

Has the thread from yesterday on the same subject gone?

[Jackdaw33]

As I understand it it used to be the law in this country that only Christianity could be blasphemed. Mohammed and his ilk were fair game.

[Peter Pedant]

so would I
as a standard bleeding heart liberal - there is another thread about this. The case takes some finding on the ECHR site
The english comment in unclear - the Guardian ( Nigh will say Ha! oh that - then it doesnt exist! ) says defaming Mohd ( pbuh) is different to criticising the religion
and the case is here

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-187188%22]}

(and if anyone is unclear about what this post says - it is
if you put your cursor thing on the coloured writing and click then the case report will magically appear in another window on your computer)

[-Talbot-]

It's a very serious issue, one that will only serve to further divide.

Has anyone seen this story on our Msm?

[Peter Pedant]

// Has the thread from yesterday on the same subject gone?//

no - just ignored - which on AB is the same thing!

[-Talbot-]

Wake up... Peter

[naomi24]

If this appalling judgement, which has far reaching implications, is applied evenly a good proportion of European comedians should be having their collars felt … dog collars included. Somehow I doubt it will be.

[Gromit]

In the UK the Blasphemy Laws were abolished in 2008’ replaces by the Racial and Religious Hatred Act.

In Austria, where this far right activist was prosecuted, they have their own laws which she fell foul of.
An Austrian court convicted her of disparaging religious doctrines in 2011 and fined her 480 euros (548 dollars), a judgment that was upheld on two appeals. And now the ECHR have also upheald it.
In short, she broke the law in her country, so the fine must be paid. The ECHR have effectly said that local laws such as the UKs Racial and Religious Hatred Act take precedent.
The UK does not have a law on Freedom of Speech, we did however sign up to a European Convention which has a broad sweep of exceptions including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace (which has been used to prohibit racist speech targeted at individuals), sending any article which is indecent or grossly offensive with an intent to cause distress or anxiety (which has been used to prohibit speech of a racist or anti-religious nature).

All sounds pretty sensible to me. Calling Islam as a paedaphile cult is not ment to enhance a great debate, it is meant as a hateful and inciting insult, which is now unlawful.

ECHR supporting Austrian or UK law should be supported, not criticised.
If far right parties want to abolish laws on inciting Religious Hatred, they need to get an elected majority first. Until then, they must obey the law, or face the consequences.

[dannyk13]

Well put Gromit.

[douglas9401]

"If far right parties want to abolish laws on inciting Religious Hatred, they need to get an elected majority first. "

Be very careful what you wish for.

[naomi24]

//ECHR supporting Austrian or UK law should be supported, not criticised.//

You're really willing to abandon your right to freedom of speech so easily? Really?

[Zacs-Master]

Nothing has been abandoned tho. The laws were already in place. You can debate the rights and wrongs of whether that law should exist but not its application when it clearly does.

[naomi24]

That's what we're debating - isn't it? This law shouldn't exist.

[Zacs-Master]

You’re OP clearly indicates that you want to discuss the ECHR rules implications on free speech. When someone makes a statement in a country who has laws preventing such statements I’m afraid they deserve the law being applied. It’s not ECHR rules, it’s the law of the country she said it in.

[Gromit]

Naomi,
There is no right to Freedom of Speech in the UK. Never has been. We have a negative right to Freedom of Expression, but that may be curtailed if our laws are broken in the practice of expressing yourself.

[naomi24]

Zacs/Gromit, I know that, but knowing it doesn't make it right.

[Zacs-Master]

We know you know it doesn’t make it right. We know it doesn’t make it right. But she knew it wasn’t right and still did it. Now that’s not right, is it.