ChatterBank1 min 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
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.
"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.
// (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 ?
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 ?
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?
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?
// 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?
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?
// (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.
////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.
//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.
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.
// 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
( 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
Latest Posts
Is There A Pro England Rally Today
News2 mins ago
Crosswords3 mins ago
Body & Soul11 mins ago
News21 mins ago
Society & Culture25 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.