Crosswords8 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-
12:36 Tue 20th Nov 2018
In justifying their ruling the judges appear to be setting precedents which could well lead to impositions on other nations at a later date. If it becomes established that religious persons have a right not to be offended, it will fall on other states to uphold that right and they may be forced to follow.
Meanwhile in Britain, Theresa May has backed away from her earlier enthusiasm for withdrawing from the authority of the European Court of Human Rights. But incidents such as this, where rights law starts metastasising and threatening to impose fresh obligations on democratic governments without any popular mandate, are a good reminder why Britain's relationship with it, is something which future, post-Brexit governments may need to revisit.
Meanwhile in Britain, Theresa May has backed away from her earlier enthusiasm for withdrawing from the authority of the European Court of Human Rights. But incidents such as this, where rights law starts metastasising and threatening to impose fresh obligations on democratic governments without any popular mandate, are a good reminder why Britain's relationship with it, is something which future, post-Brexit governments may need to revisit.
‘Khandro In justifying their ruling the judges appear to be setting precedents which could well lead to impositions on other nations at a later date‘
Where on earth did you get that from? The only way the ECHR will ‘impose’ anything is if the law exists in the country in question, as they did in this case. Upholding the law of a country is not ‘imposition’.
Where on earth did you get that from? The only way the ECHR will ‘impose’ anything is if the law exists in the country in question, as they did in this case. Upholding the law of a country is not ‘imposition’.
well over night are we any further forward
( if forward can be a direction in this discussion)
Nigh doesnt agree with the judgement rather than thinks it wrong in law
( but as Nigh herself migh quip - so what ?)
and: Khandro has added
"‘K. In justifying their ruling the judges appear to be setting precedents which could well lead to impositions on other nations at a later date"
and I thought someone would add
and what is the role of precedent in ECHR rulings?
but no - -- someone asks - where did that come from?
and here is one answer
https:/
I suppose Asir Bibi ( thousands chorus with smiling faces - "Asir Bibi who dat den? she den rather?" - or "Asir she some kinda froot juice den?") will deserve another thread
oh and in answer to K - hi K how are you this morning ?
Theresa May is backing away from denying the authority of the ECHR because someone has told her it is not an EU institution but rather she will have to abrogate the Treaty on Human Rights on which it depends
( if forward can be a direction in this discussion)
Nigh doesnt agree with the judgement rather than thinks it wrong in law
( but as Nigh herself migh quip - so what ?)
and: Khandro has added
"‘K. In justifying their ruling the judges appear to be setting precedents which could well lead to impositions on other nations at a later date"
and I thought someone would add
and what is the role of precedent in ECHR rulings?
but no - -- someone asks - where did that come from?
and here is one answer
https:/
I suppose Asir Bibi ( thousands chorus with smiling faces - "Asir Bibi who dat den? she den rather?" - or "Asir she some kinda froot juice den?") will deserve another thread
oh and in answer to K - hi K how are you this morning ?
Theresa May is backing away from denying the authority of the ECHR because someone has told her it is not an EU institution but rather she will have to abrogate the Treaty on Human Rights on which it depends
// But incidents such as this, where rights law starts metastasising and threatening to impose fresh obligations on democratic governments without any popular mandate,//
and then he wrecks a sensible comment with - rights law metastasizing - oh dear
New laws new rights and duties - as Nigh says - derrrr
and then he wrecks a sensible comment with - rights law metastasizing - oh dear
New laws new rights and duties - as Nigh says - derrrr
//Nigh doesnt agree with the judgement rather than thinks it wrong in law//
That’s not accurate. I’ve made it clear that I believe blasphemy laws should be abolished. The problem as I see it is even though she spoke the truth this woman’s right to freedom of speech has been denied her by an organisation whose primary function is to protect human rights. I fail to see how anyone finds that acceptable – or just.
Now the question is, as Khandro has indicated, will that judgement have a knock on effect for the citizens of countries that don’t embrace blasphemy laws? If the ECHR deems it illegal to insult religion, then that judgement must surely stand across the board. No?
That’s not accurate. I’ve made it clear that I believe blasphemy laws should be abolished. The problem as I see it is even though she spoke the truth this woman’s right to freedom of speech has been denied her by an organisation whose primary function is to protect human rights. I fail to see how anyone finds that acceptable – or just.
Now the question is, as Khandro has indicated, will that judgement have a knock on effect for the citizens of countries that don’t embrace blasphemy laws? If the ECHR deems it illegal to insult religion, then that judgement must surely stand across the board. No?
Zacs Please read what I said, "the judges appear to be setting precedents which could well lead to impositions on other nations at a later date"
The ECHR is not a legislative body, it is, as its name suggests, a court and makes judgements on other cases brought to it. BUT, the danger is, once a judgement has been made, as in this case, it will be used as precedent in other cases and in other EU countries.
The ECHR is not a legislative body, it is, as its name suggests, a court and makes judgements on other cases brought to it. BUT, the danger is, once a judgement has been made, as in this case, it will be used as precedent in other cases and in other EU countries.
"Theresa May is backing away from denying the authority of the ECHR because someone has told her it is not an EU institution but rather she will have to abrogate the Treaty on Human Rights on which it depends"
Unsure I see her concern. There's been many times folk have disagreed with the existing definitions of what is a human right, and what one is allowed and not allowed to do because of it. Having our own definitions and allowances/restrictions seems an excellent return of sovereignty. Initially having the current system, then changing that which stands out as being wrong as it is reviewed. But whether one needs to go that far would depend on how much flexibility we have regarding our laws after leaving the EU. Leave that to the lawyers to investigate.
Unsure I see her concern. There's been many times folk have disagreed with the existing definitions of what is a human right, and what one is allowed and not allowed to do because of it. Having our own definitions and allowances/restrictions seems an excellent return of sovereignty. Initially having the current system, then changing that which stands out as being wrong as it is reviewed. But whether one needs to go that far would depend on how much flexibility we have regarding our laws after leaving the EU. Leave that to the lawyers to investigate.
Good and Bad News;
'
Asia Bibi was sentenced to death in 2010 because she is a Christian and because she was thirsty. Today, justice was served when her conviction was overturned.
Now, we must fear that when Bibi is released, she will be targeted for assassination. Islamists have placed a bounty on her head of 50 million rupees ($375,000). Salman Taseer, a brave Muslim who was governor of Pakistan's Punjab province, was murdered just for expressing support for her. Pakistan's federal Minister for Minorities, Shahbaz Bhatti, was also murdered for defending Bibi.
Lawyers defending Christians and others accused of blasphemy are sometimes murdered as well.
In the ultimate irony, just a few days ago, the so-called European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) upheld this same blasphemy law. The ECHR ruling is unspeakable. It is time to remove the unelected judges of that unaccountable and unappealable court.'
Giulio Meotti
'
Asia Bibi was sentenced to death in 2010 because she is a Christian and because she was thirsty. Today, justice was served when her conviction was overturned.
Now, we must fear that when Bibi is released, she will be targeted for assassination. Islamists have placed a bounty on her head of 50 million rupees ($375,000). Salman Taseer, a brave Muslim who was governor of Pakistan's Punjab province, was murdered just for expressing support for her. Pakistan's federal Minister for Minorities, Shahbaz Bhatti, was also murdered for defending Bibi.
Lawyers defending Christians and others accused of blasphemy are sometimes murdered as well.
In the ultimate irony, just a few days ago, the so-called European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) upheld this same blasphemy law. The ECHR ruling is unspeakable. It is time to remove the unelected judges of that unaccountable and unappealable court.'
Giulio Meotti
'the danger is, [ ], it will be used as precedent in other cases and in other EU countries.
Only if there's a law to uphold in the country where the crime (if it is one) took place, Khandro. I repeat, the ECHR cannot and have not 'imposed' anything on anyone. They have simply ruled that the law was right to be applied in this instance.
Only if there's a law to uphold in the country where the crime (if it is one) took place, Khandro. I repeat, the ECHR cannot and have not 'imposed' anything on anyone. They have simply ruled that the law was right to be applied in this instance.
Zacs; Perhaps along with a lack understanding jurisprudence, you also lack the skill to even read.
I have nowhere stated that the ECHR has 'imposed' anything on anyone, they have (quite wrongly, in mine and in the opinion of others) upheld the decision of the Austrian court, which had found that describing a man, (Mohammad) who married a child of six and had sexual intercourse with her when she was nine, as a paedophile, was hate speech.
As the defendant said, "What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?”
What do you call it?
I have nowhere stated that the ECHR has 'imposed' anything on anyone, they have (quite wrongly, in mine and in the opinion of others) upheld the decision of the Austrian court, which had found that describing a man, (Mohammad) who married a child of six and had sexual intercourse with her when she was nine, as a paedophile, was hate speech.
As the defendant said, "What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?”
What do you call it?
If that's true, how can the rulings of one country's judicial system impose laws on another?
You clearly were referring to ECHR judges, Khandro. Why else would you write ' ......the authority of the European Court of Human Rights. But incidents such as this, where rights law starts metastasising and threatening to impose fresh obligations on democratic governments without any popular mandate'?
You're back pedalling is almost as bad as Naomi's, and that's saying something!
You clearly were referring to ECHR judges, Khandro. Why else would you write ' ......the authority of the European Court of Human Rights. But incidents such as this, where rights law starts metastasising and threatening to impose fresh obligations on democratic governments without any popular mandate'?
You're back pedalling is almost as bad as Naomi's, and that's saying something!
well we arent much further forward from 0900
"The ECHR is not a legislative body, it is, a court and makes judgements on cases brought to it. BUT, once a judgement has been made, as in this case, it will be used as precedent in other cases."
I would probably subscribe to that - speeches from the House of Lords ( now subsumed as Supreme Court ) were looked on as altering legislation. The 1875 Judicature Act appointed the Appeal Court as the supreme court in the UK. - now also amended.
The thing about precedent is..... the english courts are v keen on it and the other countries arent really.
here is Lord Goldsmith ( who did not cover himself in glory over his opinion on the Iraq war ) on precedent and the ECHR
https:/
and they do look as tho they are binding precedent
"The ECHR is not a legislative body, it is, a court and makes judgements on cases brought to it. BUT, once a judgement has been made, as in this case, it will be used as precedent in other cases."
I would probably subscribe to that - speeches from the House of Lords ( now subsumed as Supreme Court ) were looked on as altering legislation. The 1875 Judicature Act appointed the Appeal Court as the supreme court in the UK. - now also amended.
The thing about precedent is..... the english courts are v keen on it and the other countries arent really.
here is Lord Goldsmith ( who did not cover himself in glory over his opinion on the Iraq war ) on precedent and the ECHR
https:/
and they do look as tho they are binding precedent
The Court's conclusion:
"57. The Court.. finds that... domestic courts ... assessed the wider context of the applicant’s statements, and... balanced her right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and to have religious peace reserved... 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[i in Muslims. In addition, the Court considers that the impugned statements were [i]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. Thus...classifying them as an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam, which was capable of stirring up prejudice and putting at risk religious peace, the domestic courts came to the conclusion that the facts at issue contained...incitement to religious intolerance. The Court accepts that they ...put forward... sufficient reasons and finds that the interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 10... corresponded to aquote[pressing social need ] and was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
58. Therefore, the Court considers that the domestic courts did not overstep their – wide – margin of appreciation... when convicting the applicant of disparaging religious doctrines. Accordingly,
there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention."
The implications of this ruling are that (if you an Austrian) you can only criticise Islam if: (1) you say nothing which might disturb the "religious feelings" of Muslims; (2) you say nothing which might arouse their " justified indignation"; (3) you say nothing unless it is in a "neutral manner aimed at being an objective contribution to a public debate". But these conditions are impossible to meet. Therefore all criticism of Islam in Austria is a criminal offence.
Do the surprisingly many of you who support the ECHR ruling agree with my conclusion?
"57. The Court.. finds that... domestic courts ... assessed the wider context of the applicant’s statements, and... balanced her right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and to have religious peace reserved... 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[i in Muslims. In addition, the Court considers that the impugned statements were [i]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. Thus...classifying them as an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam, which was capable of stirring up prejudice and putting at risk religious peace, the domestic courts came to the conclusion that the facts at issue contained...incitement to religious intolerance. The Court accepts that they ...put forward... sufficient reasons and finds that the interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 10... corresponded to aquote[pressing social need ] and was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
58. Therefore, the Court considers that the domestic courts did not overstep their – wide – margin of appreciation... when convicting the applicant of disparaging religious doctrines. Accordingly,
there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention."
The implications of this ruling are that (if you an Austrian) you can only criticise Islam if: (1) you say nothing which might disturb the "religious feelings" of Muslims; (2) you say nothing which might arouse their " justified indignation"; (3) you say nothing unless it is in a "neutral manner aimed at being an objective contribution to a public debate". But these conditions are impossible to meet. Therefore all criticism of Islam in Austria is a criminal offence.
Do the surprisingly many of you who support the ECHR ruling agree with my conclusion?
Latest Posts
Great British Insults Dying Out!
News18 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles55 mins ago
Crosswords58 mins ago
Body & Soul72 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.