European Human Rights Court Backs Sharia Blasphemy Law

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Unfortunately, the former rarely happens and you can't reason people out of irrational beliefs because they weren't reasoned into it in the first place.

Hold on a second. Didn't you used to be a fascist? Like an actual card-carrying member of the far-right? Didn't you get reasoned or reason yourself out of that?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Relax. Polling shows 80% or more of Dems do not support the far, far left PC agenda. If you think they do, you're probably a victim of misinformation and propaganda from the right.

I understand. I already said I highly doubt they will support this. I was merely giving a hypothetical that is unlikely to happen. It would take a LOT to get me to support Trump, and this is an example of where I would cross the line. If the Dems suddenly became in favor of jailing people for insulting Islam, then I would vote for Trump.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Hold on a second. Didn't you used to be a fascist? Like an actual card-carrying member of the far-right? Didn't you get reasoned or reason yourself out of that?

I was a lot of things. I was into David Icke's reptilian conspiracy theories and neo-Nazi. A lot of the neo-Nazism was rooted in my self-hatred and anxieties over being mixed race. I didn't support violence against different groups, though. (I actually still have some far-right, Fascist leanings but I'm not bigoted in terms of ethnicity, gender or orientation, though. Just more authoritarian than most, I guess.) However, there are a lot of that ilk that do support violence. There's different camps that vary on tactics.

So I never bought into the genocidal rhetoric to begin with but there's those who come across the writings of James Mason, William Pierce and the ONA (for example) and take it as gospel.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

How is censorship a solution? It's bombs and bullets and not words that kill and maim. They use the push for censorship to paint themselves as victims and martyrs. They take it as validation.

How many hate crimes does Canada or pretty much any other first world nation have as compared to America?

 

[Sunstone]

I understand. I already said I highly doubt they will support this. I was merely giving a hypothetical that is unlikely to happen. It would take a LOT to get me to support Trump, and this is an example of where I would cross the line. If the Dems suddenly became in favor of jailing people for insulting Islam, then I would vote for Trump.

Nothing could get me to vote for Trump. Nothing. I am not going to contribute to the political suicide pact that is Trumpism. But if the Dems suddenly became overwhelming in favor of jailing people for insulting Islam -- or any religion -- I would look for sane Republicans to vote for (if any can be found in this day and age). Failing that, I'd vote third party.

 

[Father Heathen]

How many hate crimes does Canada or pretty much any other first world nation have as compared to America?

They also tend to be more liberal and better educated on average. I believe that has far more to do with it than censorship does.

 

[oldbadger]

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

Free speech?
You call that free speech?
Wow!

 

[oldbadger]

So if a vile person commits vile deeds, but also happens to be revered by a lot of people, then the truth should be silenced to spare people's fee-fees?

The fact that people are willing to cower and concede to bullies rather than stand up for free speech is pathetic.

Oh please!
Not one, but two Courts found against this extremist and provocative woman...

Read the findings for yourself....
"The Court noted that the domestic courts comprehensively explained why they considered that the applicant's statements had been capable of arousing justified indignation; specifically, they had not been made in an objective manner contributing to a debate of public interest (e.g. on child marriage), but could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship. It agreed with the domestic courts that Mrs S. must have been aware that her statements were partly based on untrue facts and apt to arouse indignation in others. The national courts found that Mrs S. had subjectively labelled Muhammad with pedophilia as his general sexual preference, and that she failed to neutrally inform her audience of the historical background, which consequently did not allow for a serious debate on that issue. Hence, the Court saw no reason to depart from the domestic courts' qualification of the impugned statements as value judgments which they had based on a detailed analysis of the statements made.
"The Court found in conclusion that in the instant case the domestic courts carefully balanced the applicant's right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and to have religious peace preserved in Austrian society.
"The Court held further that even in a lively discussion it was not compatible with Article 10 of the Convention to pack incriminating statements into the wrapping of an otherwise acceptable expression of opinion and claim that this rendered passable those statements exceeding the permissible limits of freedom of expression.
"Lastly, since Mrs S. was ordered to pay a moderate fine and that fine was on the lower end of the statutory range of punishment, the criminal sanction could not to be considered as disproportionate.
"Under these circumstances, and given the fact that Mrs S. made several incriminating statements, the Court considered that the Austrian courts did not overstep their wide margin of appreciation in the instant case when convicting Mrs S. of disparaging religious doctrines. Overall, there had been no violation of Article 10."

 

[Father Heathen]

Oh please!
Not one, but two Courts found against this extremist and provocative woman...

Read the findings for yourself....
"The Court noted that the domestic courts comprehensively explained why they considered that the applicant's statements had been capable of arousing justified indignation; specifically, they had not been made in an objective manner contributing to a debate of public interest (e.g. on child marriage), but could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship. It agreed with the domestic courts that Mrs S. must have been aware that her statements were partly based on untrue facts and apt to arouse indignation in others. The national courts found that Mrs S. had subjectively labelled Muhammad with pedophilia as his general sexual preference, and that she failed to neutrally inform her audience of the historical background, which consequently did not allow for a serious debate on that issue. Hence, the Court saw no reason to depart from the domestic courts' qualification of the impugned statements as value judgments which they had based on a detailed analysis of the statements made.
"The Court found in conclusion that in the instant case the domestic courts carefully balanced the applicant's right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and to have religious peace preserved in Austrian society.
"The Court held further that even in a lively discussion it was not compatible with Article 10 of the Convention to pack incriminating statements into the wrapping of an otherwise acceptable expression of opinion and claim that this rendered passable those statements exceeding the permissible limits of freedom of expression.
"Lastly, since Mrs S. was ordered to pay a moderate fine and that fine was on the lower end of the statutory range of punishment, the criminal sanction could not to be considered as disproportionate.
"Under these circumstances, and given the fact that Mrs S. made several incriminating statements, the Court considered that the Austrian courts did not overstep their wide margin of appreciation in the instant case when convicting Mrs S. of disparaging religious doctrines. Overall, there had been no violation of Article 10."

*poops on every religious figure ever* Now I sit back and wait for the thought police to come and apprehend me for my cruel provocation. May the gratification from my punishment be the salve to soothe the deep wounds that my words have caused.

 

[oldbadger]

This sort of thinking makes it sound as though Muslims generally will react to this sort of thing with violence. How about we blame the terrorists for inciting acts of terrorism and their supporters for inciting it?

The Courts, both of them, just followed the path of existing legislation.
If you think that you would have been a better judge, why don't you enter law as a profession?

Blaming it on the rest of us is akin to removing the Muslim agency and makes it sound like they cannot react any other way.

I don't know where you live, but the law is the same for everybody...... in the UK we have .locked Muslims up for incitement and provocation but I didn't notice you shouting out for their rights to free speech.

Well?

Silencing people for fear of offending Muslims is allowing Islamic terrorism to work. The Charlie Hebdo cartoonists will probably be spinning in their graves just now.

Nah..... In the UK we've been convicting some Muslims for similar offences, locking them up, actually.

If you want to protect hate speech, slander, libel and defamation, just wait 'till it happens to somebody that you like, then we'll see if you turn around and shout the other way.

 

[oldbadger]

*poops on every religious figure ever* Now I sit back and wait for the thought police to come and apprehend me for my cruel provocation. May the gratification from my punishment be the salve to soothe the deep wounds that my words have caused.

Don't do that......... you've caused me to imagine you squatting with your pants down, now.
And I hope that you moved before you sat back......

OMG,
What a picture.... Oh no....

 

[Vouthon]

Just to make sure, though.

Does everyone here understand that the ECHR has ruled that the application of the Austrian law doesn't breach the Convention on Human Rights?

This is not a case of rendering the Austrian law enforceable elsewhere in Europe. Some media reports got this point wrong. The case wasn't about that, the court hasn't done that and the court won't do that.

Rather, all that happened was that an Austrian woman got fined for violating the law in Austria (which is strict on these hate speech matters owing to its Nazi past i.e. there are cultural peculiarities here that need put in context) and appealed to the supranational Court in Strasbourg insisting that Austria had breached her human rights.

The ECHR simply ruled that, in their judgment, the decision of the Austrian court was made in accordance with their own valid legal norms and didn't breach the European Convention.

There is no suggestion being made that other European countries should emulate the Austrian law, only that the Austrian law doesn't violate the Convention in the eyes of the ECHR (which is tasked with interpreting and adjudicating on the Convention).

 

[columbus]

Free speech?
You call that free speech?
Wow!

Yes.
Don't get me wrong. I don't believe that Muhammad was at all a pedophile. A successful 7th century Arabic warlord could have a zillion slave girls. Obviously Muhammad cared very much about Aisha, wouldn't hurt her, and he did make her a queen.

But I still find it crucial for a Western democracy that speech, including speech I vehemently disagree with (like BLM and MeToo) be protected. Especially it needs protection against autocratic world views, from Fascism to Islam to whatever.

So yeah, while I disagree with that one part of what she said I staunchly support her right, duty even, to say it.

Out loud, without punitive fines or jail time or any such thing.
Tom

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

The Courts, both of them, just followed the path of existing legislation.
If you think that you would have been a better judge, why don't you enter law as a profession?

I don't need to be a mechanic to know putting a jet engine on a car is a bad idea but I guess I'm not allowed to say that because I'm not a mechanic

I don't know where you live, but the law is the same for everybody...... in the UK we have .locked Muslims up for incitement and provocation but I didn't notice you shouting out for their rights to free speech.

Well?


Nah..... In the UK we've been convicting some Muslims for similar offences, locking them up, actually.

If you want to protect hate speech, slander, libel and defamation, just wait 'till it happens to somebody that you like, then we'll see if you turn around and shout the other way.

When did this happen? Got any examples?

Also, is it possible to slander or defame a man who is approximately thirteen centuries dead?

 

[columbus]

I am curious about the law in Austria that a European court just upheld.

Would someone claiming that Trump is a serial adulterer also get you a fine?
Tom

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I understand. I already said I highly doubt they will support this. I was merely giving a hypothetical that is unlikely to happen. It would take a LOT to get me to support Trump, and this is an example of where I would cross the line. If the Dems suddenly became in favor of jailing people for insulting Islam, then I would vote for Trump.

In your world are people free to insult and denigrate jews. And say what they like about them.

 

[Shad]

In your world are people free to insult and denigrate jews. And say what they like about them.

It is easy defending speech you like. It is harder to defend the principle of free speech when the example is something you disagree with. You and this court has merely conceded they/you are not up to par when it comes to something they disagree with thus abandon the principle in favour of control.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It is easy defending speech you like. It is harder to defend the principle of free speech when the example is something you disagree with. You and this court has merely conceded they/you are not up to par when it comes to something they disagree with thus abandon the principle in favour of control.

Generally in the uk we defend free speech. But it takes its place amongs many other laws and freedoms. IT most certainly does not prempt them.

Nor does it do so all the time in the USA. Think of the anti american courts under McCarthy. Or try threatning your president. Or indeed slandering anyone...you would soon find youself in court.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

*poops on every religious figure ever* Now I sit back and wait for the thought police to come and apprehend me for my cruel provocation. May the gratification from my punishment be the salve to soothe the deep wounds that my words have caused.

I get your point of view. Honestly, I do. But suggesting that only completely unfettered speech is acceptable, and that anything else is 'thought police' may be the same sort of black and white thinking you've been complaining about in this very thread.

I'm Australian, and picking on national leaders is basically a sport, but still, we don't have the same sort of compleyely unfettered speech you're describing. Calling that 'thought police' is a little simplistic, in my opinion.

 

[Shad]

Generally in the uk we defend free speech. But it takes its place amongs many other laws and freedoms. IT most certainly does not prempt them.

Ergo not free speech. Controlled sanctioned speech? Yup.

Nor does it do so all the time in the USA. Think of the anti american courts under McCarthy.

That wasn't about free speech but sedition and infiltration of foreign agents along with subversion and treason. Ergo actual laws. He merely used the speech of others to, often, fabricate charges under those laws.

Or try threatning your president. Or indeed slandering anyone...you would soon find youself in court.

I never said free speech was an absolute. You are attacking a strawman.