Twenty Two Years And Counting.
ChatterBank10 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
What do you call a man who has sex with a nine year old?
I'd call them the same thing as everyone else has on here. I've never said I agree with the Austrian law. The Austrian law wasn't what you wanted to debate, Naomi. You (as Khandro did) wanted to condemn the ECHR and attempted to do so on an unsound basis. Freedom of speech in Austria has stricter limitations than elsewhere. The ECHR's hands were tied and couldn't come to any other conclusion than to support the Austrian law which the woman had breached.
'Mrs S had argued that her right to freedom of speech had been infringed but the ECHR ruled the lower courts had not violated that right'
This is about the fifth different way I've explained the same thing.
I'd call them the same thing as everyone else has on here. I've never said I agree with the Austrian law. The Austrian law wasn't what you wanted to debate, Naomi. You (as Khandro did) wanted to condemn the ECHR and attempted to do so on an unsound basis. Freedom of speech in Austria has stricter limitations than elsewhere. The ECHR's hands were tied and couldn't come to any other conclusion than to support the Austrian law which the woman had breached.
'Mrs S had argued that her right to freedom of speech had been infringed but the ECHR ruled the lower courts had not violated that right'
This is about the fifth different way I've explained the same thing.
//The ECHR's hands were tied and couldn't come to any other conclusion than to support the Austrian law//
That I found irrational. If the ECHR's hands are tied and it is obliged to uphold the law of the land its existence doesn’t make sense, so I did a bit of digging and found that the ECHR has been instrumental in changing the law of the land on several occasions. This time it failed in its duty.
https:/
That I found irrational. If the ECHR's hands are tied and it is obliged to uphold the law of the land its existence doesn’t make sense, so I did a bit of digging and found that the ECHR has been instrumental in changing the law of the land on several occasions. This time it failed in its duty.
https:/
//The ECHR's hands were tied and couldn't come to any other conclusion than to support the Austrian law which the woman had breached//
And I think that its job was to determine if her rights under Article 10 had be violated, whi, in principle, could mean determining that the original judgment was legal under Austrian law, but that the law itself was in contravention of Article 10,
Do a thought experiment: Austria makes a law forcing ginger-haired people to dye their hair green. Is it the ECHR's duty to support the gingers or to support the Austrian law?
What say you, Mr. Pedant?
And I think that its job was to determine if her rights under Article 10 had be violated, whi, in principle, could mean determining that the original judgment was legal under Austrian law, but that the law itself was in contravention of Article 10,
Do a thought experiment: Austria makes a law forcing ginger-haired people to dye their hair green. Is it the ECHR's duty to support the gingers or to support the Austrian law?
What say you, Mr. Pedant?
Zacs //'Mrs S had argued that her right to freedom of speech had been infringed but the ECHR ruled the lower courts had not violated that right'//
It wasn't simply her (and everyone else's) "freedom of speech" she was defending, it was, as Jordan Peterson has successfully asserted on other issues, the very use of language itself.
Any man who has sexual intercourse with a 9 year old child, is plain and simply, as she said, a paedophile.
She was right and the Austrian court and the ECHR were wrong.
It wasn't simply her (and everyone else's) "freedom of speech" she was defending, it was, as Jordan Peterson has successfully asserted on other issues, the very use of language itself.
Any man who has sexual intercourse with a 9 year old child, is plain and simply, as she said, a paedophile.
She was right and the Austrian court and the ECHR were wrong.
I don't think PP responds to non-sequiturs- or in this case maybe it's
a plurium interrogationum. (Wot dan den)
This bit should be sufficient for Naomi (who I wouldn't agree is a thicko, V-E- she is a shrewd twister in debates who is able to continue to get support from those followers who don't spot what's going on).
From the article:
In a statement, the European Court of Human Right said: “The Court found in particular that the domestic courts comprehensively assessed the wider context of the applicant’s statements and carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria.
“It held that by considering the impugned statements as going beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate, and by classifying them as an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam which could stir up prejudice and threaten religious peace, the domestic courts put forward relevant and sufficient reasons.”
a plurium interrogationum. (Wot dan den)
This bit should be sufficient for Naomi (who I wouldn't agree is a thicko, V-E- she is a shrewd twister in debates who is able to continue to get support from those followers who don't spot what's going on).
From the article:
In a statement, the European Court of Human Right said: “The Court found in particular that the domestic courts comprehensively assessed the wider context of the applicant’s statements and carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria.
“It held that by considering the impugned statements as going beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate, and by classifying them as an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam which could stir up prejudice and threaten religious peace, the domestic courts put forward relevant and sufficient reasons.”
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.