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.

[vetuste_ennemi]

I asked on a different thread whether criticism of Mormonism and its founder would be subject to the same strictures.

Can you imagine someone being prosecuted in the criminal courts for "an abusive attack on Joseph Smith"?

[naomi24]

No - I can't.

[vetuste_ennemi]

This is the ECHR (section 52 of the PP doc) in its conclusion quoting the points of Austrian law on which Sabaditsch-Wolff was convicted:

"The Court notes that the domestic courts extensively explained why they considered that the applicant’s statements had been capable of arousing justified indignation, namely that they had not been made in an objective manner aiming at contributing to a debate of public interest, but could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not a worthy subject of worship ...
The Court endorses this assessment."

This shows an extraordinary ignorance of Islam by all three Austrian courts and the ECHR itself: that "worshipping" Mohammed would be blasphemous. (Drawing Mohammed, anybody? Forbidden because it might encourage the veneration of someone other than the one God?

Sabaditsch-Wolff was not so ignorant: her point was not that Mohammed was not worthy of worship, but that he was not worthy of imitation and is not the perfect model of conduct Muslims are supposed to follow.

[naomi24]

This judgement was absolutely wrong for more than one reason. A very, very slippery slope to embark upon.

[Zacs-Master]

There is no slope. There is a law which the woman broke. Stop digging Naomi and swallow your pride for once. You posted an ill informed OP because you didn’t realise it was a law in the country in which she was speaking and now you’re trying to back pedal.

[naomi24]

//You posted an ill informed OP because you didn’t realise it was a law in the country in which she was speaking//

Get your cycling shorts on. Read the OP.

[Peter Pedant]

// (Drawing Mohammed, anybody? Forbidden because it might encourage the veneration of someone other than the one God? //

but that of course is NOT in the Koran is it - and anyway the last one who did that got stabbed innit ? and pleading freedom of religion was NOT a defence

worshipping Mohd - missed that
just got up to the insulting bit in the judgement and thought 'oh'

I am not sure if the insulting the Archbishop of Canterbury would count

Oh by the way - just to excoriate you lot
Has anyone noticed - leaving the EU means leaving the legal institutions such as the ECJ ( or not as Mystic Meg might say)
BUT,,,,,
then that leaves the ECHR - as that is not an EU institution but something we subscribe to as of a different treaty ( one of the many concluded after the 2 WW) it will still be there- treaty of human rights I think

( cue all the ABers exploding - "what dat den?" "Dat not right!" balanced wiv "Dat right - me auld mam told me!" and "gedddon wiv you - dat!" and of course....
" I put da treaty on ooman right fooda google translayer and it said "put your faith in a great big beautiful warl")

yup fraid so boys and girls - the EC HR is here to say post beautiful Brexit - who was it who said we still have no idea what Brexit will look like ?

[Peter Pedant]

// This judgement was absolutely wrong for more than one reason. //
o god - good one
and they are ?

[vetuste_ennemi]

So many lies, sneers and evasions.

So little time.

[vetuste_ennemi]

It would appear that freedom of speech has fewer friends than it deserves.

I am disgusted by the posts at 7:30 and 7:43 and their authors.

[vetuste_ennemi]

7:49.

Can't read.

[Peter Pedant]

I see no censorship

if someone says: "Brexit, yeah! n we'll be free of the ECHR"
and another person says that it doesnt follow at all

i dont see that that is censorship
( The americans do and are heavily into telling disagreers that they are interfering with free speech)

[Peter Pedant]

as Nigh might quip : disgust away !

[vetuste_ennemi]

7:30 hasn't read the ruling and doesn't know the law which was broken or the judicial reasoning which convicted ES in the first place.
Nor the reasoning which upheld the conviction in her appeals up to the ECHR.

Maybe he should read the document.

7:49 as usual exhibits all his usual traits of divine madness and makes his normal imputations of stupidity and ignorance to the people he's sneering at assumin that his many fans will accept everything he says as truth based on his reputation as polymath. The prohibition on depicting Mohammed is not in the Koran. Agreed. So what? The five pillars of Islam are not in explicit form in the Koran either. Or does PP want to contradict me on that? Is what I said about the prohibition on pictorial representations of the Prophet (and other humans) and the reasons for it a lie? Or is it not?

And who said that leaving the EU meant ceasing to be a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rightts and (by implication) the jurisdiction of the ECHR on rights issues?

[vetuste_ennemi]

// This judgement was absolutely wrong for more than one reason. //
o god - good one
and they are ? 0

One, it contradicts the clear meaning of Article 10 of the Convention (not to mention article 20(?) of the UN Declaration of Human Rights). Secondly, by making this particular piece of (Austrian) domestic law a "specific circumstance" whereby freedom of speech should be denied. The points of domestic law under which ES was convicted were that she was endangering "religious peace" and that what she said and how she said it was likely to cause "justified indignation" and would deny other people's rights by hurting their "religious feelings".

You do see that the domestic law criminalises any speech which might upset a Muslim or cause him to become violent, don't you? And we all know it doesn't take much, does it?

[vetuste_ennemi]

In other words my freedom of speech in Austria is hostage to Muslim sentiment.

Coming to a jurisdiction near you.

Oops - already here.

[naomi24]

// (Drawing Mohammed, anybody? Forbidden because it might encourage the veneration of someone other than the one God? //

////but that of course is NOT in the Koran is it////

Of course it isn’t. That would be silly. It’s in the Hadith (and I think there’s something in the Sunnah too). The Hadith? The Sunnah? Derrr…Wot dat den?

There are several candidates here who are highly qualified to fill Winston Smith’s job. How thoughtlessly people surrender their freedoms.

[spathiphyllum]

Does the UK even have a freedom of speech act?

[vetuste_ennemi]

//There are several candidates here who are highly qualified to fill Winston Smith’s job. How thoughtlessly people surrender their freedoms.//

He ended up loving Big Brother, didn't he?

The sycophantic reference to 7th century warlord as the "Prophet of Islam" by the Austrian court and by the ECHR suggests some of Euriope's judiciary already are.

[Peter Pedant]

// Of course it isn’t. That would be silly.//
( Thus the "great bulk" of the rules of Sharia (Islamic law) are derived from ahadith, rather than the Qur'an.[7]) wiki

so we are back to arguing about the validity of hadith - which are not immutable words of God -
so nothing is fixed and it is all changeable
and the hard luck stories of Bani Quraish having his head cut off can be ignored if we wish ....as now the words set in stone we see are not set in stone and never were

not a bad days work for AB