European Human Rights Court Backs Sharia Blasphemy Law

[icehorse]

Summary of links: In Austria(?) in 2011, anti-Islam activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff gave some public lectures about the dangers of fundamentalist Islam, and among other things claimed that Mohammed was a pedophile. She was convicted of "denigrating religious beliefs", appealed the conviction, and the ECHR just upheld her conviction.

Another HUGE blow for free speech, and a huge win for anti-secularism and victimhood culture.

European Human Rights Court Backs Sharia Blasphemy Law

(BTW, the Gatestone article has a link to the actual court ruling, which you can download and read for yourself.)

 

[Stanyon]

"Preserving religious peace"...
I wonder if the pro PCr's understand a little better now
Can't say we didn't tell you so

 

[Father Heathen]

"Human rights court"? Isn't freedom of speech a human right? And how is denouncing human rights violations (i.e. religious tyranny, child rape, etc.) itself a human rights violation?

How did Europe become such a mewling milquetoast doormat so eager to sell out its own values?

 

[Revoltingest]

Summary of links: In Austria(?) in 2011, anti-Islam activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff gave some public lectures about the dangers of fundamentalist Islam, and among other things claimed that Mohammed was a pedophile. She was convicted of "denigrating religious beliefs", appealed the conviction, and the ECHR just upheld her conviction.

Another HUGE blow for free speech, and a huge win for anti-secularism and victimhood culture.

European Human Rights Court Backs Sharia Blasphemy Law

(BTW, the Gatestone article has a link to the actual court ruling, which you can download and read for yourself.)

As we so often hear on RF, Europe is far more socially advanced than Americastan.
So this decision must be correct.
But as a knuckle walking libertarian reprobate, I still prefer our great liberty in religious & political speech.

 

[Estro Felino]

The ECHR receives money from certain elitists.
Btw...this decision won't be respected by my country.

 

[Nakosis]

Summary of links: In Austria(?) in 2011, anti-Islam activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff gave some public lectures about the dangers of fundamentalist Islam, and among other things claimed that Mohammed was a pedophile. She was convicted of "denigrating religious beliefs", appealed the conviction, and the ECHR just upheld her conviction.

Another HUGE blow for free speech, and a huge win for anti-secularism and victimhood culture.

European Human Rights Court Backs Sharia Blasphemy Law

(BTW, the Gatestone article has a link to the actual court ruling, which you can download and read for yourself.)

So much for secularism.

 

[columbus]

The ECHR just handed a powerful weapon to the nativist/populist parties across Europe.

I expect the Le Pens to be raising a toast to them about now.
Tom

 

[Rival]

Roll on Brexit.

 

[Estro Felino]

Roll on Brexit.

I'd say...
I mean...they're asking for it...

 

[Rational Agnostic]

If this is what "liberalism" is becoming, I think I'm well on my way to voting for Trump in 2020.

 

[Vouthon]

The ECHR just handed a powerful weapon to the nativist/populist parties across Europe.

I expect the Le Pens to be raising a toast to them about now.
Tom

Why ever would that be the case when the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU, which is what Le Pen has been (unsuccessfully) campaigning against?

 

[Vouthon]

If this is what "liberalism" is becoming, I think I'm well on my way to voting for Trump in 2020.

Your liberalism must have been wafer-thin to begin with then, I presume, if you can so easily drift into Trump's political orbit.

 

[Vouthon]

Roll on Brexit.

Again, what does the ECHR have to do with the EU or Brexit?

This particular “European court” has nothing to do with the EU. The UK will still be under its jurisdiction post-Brexit (if Brexit goes ahead, I sincerely hope their will be another referendum to halt our march towards national suicide and global irrelevance), given that we are a signatory to the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.

This thread concerns the court of the Council of Europe, known as the ECHR (“European Court of Human Rights”), an organisation entirely separate from and older than the EU (whose court is the ECJ).

Even Russia and Turkey are under the jurisdiction of the ECHR.

 

[oldbadger]

Summary of links: In Austria(?) in 2011, anti-Islam activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff gave some public lectures about the dangers of fundamentalist Islam, and among other things claimed that Mohammed was a pedophile. She was convicted of "denigrating religious beliefs", appealed the conviction, and the ECHR just upheld her conviction.

Another HUGE blow for free speech, and a huge win for anti-secularism and victimhood culture.

European Human Rights Court Backs Sharia Blasphemy Law

(BTW, the Gatestone article has a link to the actual court ruling, which you can download and read for yourself.)

A good judgement.
Talk like that can provoke, even incite acts of hatred, violence and terrorism, Imo.

Good for the court.

 

[columbus]

Why ever would that be the case when the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU, which is what Le Pen has been (unsuccessfully) campaigning against?

Perhaps
@Rival and @Estro Felino
can better explain what seems obvious to me.
Tom

 

[Vouthon]

Perhaps
@Rival and @Estro Felino
can better explain what seems obvious to me.
Tom

I do not see anything obvious about implicitly conflating two entirely separate courts overseeing two entirely separate supranational organisations in Europe.

Le Pen is in favour of Frexit (French exit from the EU), while @Rival declared "Roll on Brexit" earlier in this thread, as if either movement would change the impact of ECHR rulings.

Both France and the UK would still be subject to the ECHR post-Frexit/Brexit because their membership of the Council of Europe has zilch to do with their distinct membership of the EU.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Your liberalism must have been wafer-thin to begin with then, I presume, if you can so easily drift into Trump's political orbit.

Notice I said "If this is what liberalism is becoming..." I highly doubt Democrats in the United States would support a Sharia blasphemy law. But if they start defending something like this, you can be damn sure I *will* vote for Trump.

 

[columbus]

A good judgement.
Talk like that can provoke, even incite acts of hatred, violence and terrorism, Imo.

Good for the court.

Perhaps, rather than abandon basic Western values like free speech the ECHR should be cracking down on Muslim theocratic values.
Tom

 

[Rival]

Again, what does the ECHR have to do with the EU or Brexit?

This particular “European court” has nothing to do with the EU. The UK will still be under its jurisdiction post-Brexit (if Brexit goes ahead, I sincerely hope their will be another referendum to halt our march towards national suicide and global irrelevance), given that we are a signatory to the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.

This thread concerns the court of the Council of Europe, known as the ECHR (“European Court of Human Rights”), an organisation entirely separate from and older than the EU (whose court is the ECJ).

Even Russia and Turkey are under the jurisdiction of the ECHR.

Because I want the entire thing to fall apart and there be no European Court or any such nonsense ever again. A continent-wide court is a naive and untenable idea that clearly no-one likes. Eliminate it. Let each country deal with things as it sees fit, subject to no-one.

 

[Vouthon]

Because I want the entire thing to fall apart and there be no European Court or any such nonsense ever again. A continent wide court is a naive and untenable idea that clearly no-one likes. Eliminate it.

'Clearly no one likes'.

A sweeping statement. There is no "thing" to fall apart, since the Council of Europe and EU are not elements of some homogeneous European "thing".

Perhaps you could explain why every European nation, including rabidly anti-EU ones like Russia which is strongly autocratic and nationalist, is under the jurisdiction of this court?

You would have Britain become an actual pariah post-Brexit and extricate itself from all continental partnerships and associations? You would have us revert to the 1930s and 40s, completely overturning 50 plus years of relative stability, peace and prosperity courtesy of our mutual interdependence?

That's not a vision I, or the majority of Europeans, share. Your in the minority I'm afraid - increasingly even here in the UK, where Brexit hasn't, isn't and won't deliver on the million failed promises of the Leave campaign.