The Perils Of Privatisation - Part X
News28 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
v_e, all becoming spookily familiar isn’t it.
Peter Pedant, //so we are back to arguing about the validity of hadith//
Back? We were never there. Keep up. Incidentally, the hadith contains immutable instructions that directly contradict the Koran – but don’t depend upon Wiki to tell you about it. A rather poor days work from you I'd say. ;o)
Peter Pedant, //so we are back to arguing about the validity of hadith//
Back? We were never there. Keep up. Incidentally, the hadith contains immutable instructions that directly contradict the Koran – but don’t depend upon Wiki to tell you about it. A rather poor days work from you I'd say. ;o)
//A rather poor days work from you I'd say//
I'd say so too.
What I'd like from Peter, Naomi, is a critical comment about the formulation of the Austrian law under which Sabaditsch-Wolff was convicted and maybe the concept of hate crime in general.
The terms "religious peace", "justified indignation" and "religious feelings" are in my view very elastic (as are all hate crime law formulations), thus making them open to a wide range of interpretations and subjective judgments. This seems to me to make bad law. It is my opinion that all hate crime legislation is antithetical to free speech, and that the judgment in this particular instance supports that view.
I'd like him to attack those remarks honestly. Unfortunately, once he's decided he's dealing with thickos or people in the wrong camp, he only occasionally rises above the sneer to make a real argument, and then only of the throw-away one-liner sort as in his attempt to rebut my claim that Islam is and always has been a political project.
I'd say so too.
What I'd like from Peter, Naomi, is a critical comment about the formulation of the Austrian law under which Sabaditsch-Wolff was convicted and maybe the concept of hate crime in general.
The terms "religious peace", "justified indignation" and "religious feelings" are in my view very elastic (as are all hate crime law formulations), thus making them open to a wide range of interpretations and subjective judgments. This seems to me to make bad law. It is my opinion that all hate crime legislation is antithetical to free speech, and that the judgment in this particular instance supports that view.
I'd like him to attack those remarks honestly. Unfortunately, once he's decided he's dealing with thickos or people in the wrong camp, he only occasionally rises above the sneer to make a real argument, and then only of the throw-away one-liner sort as in his attempt to rebut my claim that Islam is and always has been a political project.
Naomi, the thread was dead after about 7 posts when Gromit explained you'd not really understood the situation and had railed against the ECHR when all they were doing was supporting an established Austrian law.
Your constant failure to acknowledge your poorly worded OP doesn't make the thread any more valid than it was when you posted it.
Your constant failure to acknowledge your poorly worded OP doesn't make the thread any more valid than it was when you posted it.
fiction-factory, my OP isn't flawed. The ECHR has ruled very poorly here in my opinion. That you - and Zacs - don't appear to understand that isn't my problem. Others do.
Zacs, I explained to you earlier that the purpose of the ECHR is not to uphold various laws. That organisation exists to ensure that human rights are not compromised. In this instance they have been - and that is what the OP is about. Now if you’re not happy with the thread go elsewhere.
Zacs, I explained to you earlier that the purpose of the ECHR is not to uphold various laws. That organisation exists to ensure that human rights are not compromised. In this instance they have been - and that is what the OP is about. Now if you’re not happy with the thread go elsewhere.
Please don't try to silence people who point out your foibles, Naomi. It's SO unbecoming.
'the purpose of the ECHR is not to uphold various laws'
They seem to have done exactly that, so it would, definitely, seem to be part of their remit. Unless the great all powerful Naomi knows different of course (in which case I'd need proof).
'the purpose of the ECHR is not to uphold various laws'
They seem to have done exactly that, so it would, definitely, seem to be part of their remit. Unless the great all powerful Naomi knows different of course (in which case I'd need proof).
//'the purpose of the ECHR is not to uphold various laws'
They seem to have done exactly that, so it would, definitely, seem to be part of their remit. Unless the great all powerful Naomi knows different of course (in which case I'd need proof)//
From the ECHR ruling:
"The applicant complained that her criminal conviction for disparaging religious doctrines (Herabwürdigung religiöser Lehren) had violated her right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention [European Convention on Human Rights]."
So the acknowledged purpose of the hearing was not to "uphold the law" under which ES had been charged and convicted, but to determine whether the conviction constituted an "interference to her right of free speech".
They seem to have done exactly that, so it would, definitely, seem to be part of their remit. Unless the great all powerful Naomi knows different of course (in which case I'd need proof)//
From the ECHR ruling:
"The applicant complained that her criminal conviction for disparaging religious doctrines (Herabwürdigung religiöser Lehren) had violated her right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention [European Convention on Human Rights]."
So the acknowledged purpose of the hearing was not to "uphold the law" under which ES had been charged and convicted, but to determine whether the conviction constituted an "interference to her right of free speech".
Latest Posts
ChatterBank58 mins ago
Masterchef - The Professionals
Film, Media & TV90 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles122 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles123 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles155 mins ago
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.