ECHR ruling on defaming the Prophet Muhammed

Go down

ECHR ruling on defaming the Prophet Muhammed

Post by Guest on Fri Oct 26, 2018 8:35 pm

Although it’s difficult to evaluate legal judgments based on a summary in a newspaper, on the face of it, this particular judgment seems concerning.
Defaming the Prophet Muhammed “goes beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate” and “could stir up prejudice and put at risk religious peace” and thus exceeds the permissible limits of freedom of expression, ruled the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on Thursday, upholding a lower court decision.

The decision by a seven-judge panel came after an Austrian national identified as Mrs. S. held two seminars in 2009, entitled “Basic Information on Islam,” in which she defamed the Prophet Muhammad’s marriage.

According to a statement released by the court on Thursday, the Vienna Regional Criminal Court found that these statements implied that Muhammad had pedophilic tendencies, and in February 2011 convicted Mrs. S. for disparaging religious doctrines.

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/defaming-prophet-muhammed-not-free-expression-echr/1292823

It does seem from other reports that Mrs S. discussed the topic in quite a crude and tendentious way:
According to scripture the marriage was consumated [sic] when Aisha was just nine years old, leading Mrs S. to say to her class Mohammad ‘liked to do it with children’.

She also reportedly said ‘… A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? … What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?’
I certainly wouldn’t argue with a Muslim who found this Islamophobic.  However it ought to be possible to identify something as bigoted, condemn it, perhaps decide (for example) that such behaviour is incompatible with being a member of a particular political party – and yet still not make it a criminal offence.  If she had been shouting such comments outside a mosque – that would be different.  It’s particularly worrying – although perhaps something has been lost in translation – that it says she was convicted for ‘disparaging religious doctrine’, as though theological ideas deserved legal protection.

Here’s another key passage from the report:

The court held “that by considering the impugned statements as going beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate and classifying them as an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam, which could stir up prejudice and put at risk religious peace, the domestic courts put forward relevant and sufficient reasons.”

The reference to ‘the permissible limits of an objective debate’ suggests that all discourse must be fair and logical.  That might be an ideal but people should also be free, within pretty wide parameters, to be passionate and irrational.  All kinds of discourse might be ruled out of order if worries about stirring up prejudice are to be given so much weight – trenchant criticism of Israel, for example.  The reference to ‘putting at risk religious peace’ is almost sinister, and it could easily be argued that the ruling itself is equally likely to ‘put at risk religious peace’ by whipping up anti-Muslim feeling and giving ammunition to the far right.

The offensive words were uttered during the course of two seminars organised by Mrs S. It would be useful to know more about the context of these.  Were they private meetings, or held under the auspices of a public body such as a college?  I assumed the former because otherwise one would expect the details to be reported.  If this is the case then the seminars might be paralleled with some of the talks and sermons given by extremist Muslim figures.  I’m not defending the way Mrs S. tackled the issue, but it seems extraordinary, in the light of this judgment, that someone like Haitham al-Haddad can preach with impunity.

http://hurryupharry.org/2018/10/26/echr-ruling-on-defaming-the-prophet-muhammed/

I am at a loss here, how some judges can even make such an assertion here. Unless they believe there is an actual problem with Islam and its believers itself. I find that quite appalling really. That the view not to make claims, based around historical figures. Would have to extend to every historical figure. No matter their religious status. As by saying this is an abusive attack, based on what a number of Muslims already believe. Means beliefs should be protected from criticism and ridicule. Which goes against the fundemental beliefs of free speech.

Now I deplore holocasut denial, but would never look to have this criminalized. I would rather rationally disprove such people on their ignorance of history.

I mean what next? Is Ghengis Khan going to be protected from ridicule or criticism?

I mean what they are basically ruling and even more so treating Muslims are unable to control themselves. That is they are too insensitive to such criticism and this will lead to disturb the peace. Its basically providing an excuse for violence off those who feel insulted at any view to riducle poor beliefs. The very fact that many Muslim youngs girls are often forced into marriage based off this belief around Muhammad and how now this is being defended by the European court of human rights. Shows how warped and daft this body has become. They insult every under age Muslim girl victim forced into marriage in many a Muslim majority country. That allows such a practice based off Islamic doctrine around the life of Muhammad.

Thus is endorsing views around blasphemy and protecting religious characters from ridicule and criticism

Muslims as a group, like anyone other ethnic, religious, gender, disabled etc identity group should be protected from discrimination and prejudice through the laws, based on who they are. That is equalty

However no belief should be protected from riducule or criticism

Any individual should be criticized based on their acts and beliefs they follow

Someone as an individual, long dead by 1400 does not warrant protection over their claimed acts in life. Espically when those acts, are now leading to the suffering of many young Muslim girls. Thus providing unequal aspects in law, where religious figures have protection from riducle and criticism, is pandering to those very poor beliefs. Even worse its endorsing the view, that his acts are someone not to be ridiculed.

What next? His beheading of countless Jews, who changed sides when they surrendered, should be seen as something enlightening? Based on the texts? And that to question this as barbaric, goes beyond free speech? That it may insult some Muslims? I mean then anyone English should have a right to feel insulted when any English person of note in history is ridiculed. You see how dangereous a precedent this is setting? It could even lead to Nazis claiming victim status for factual damning views that condemn Hitler. Lets face it, Nazism, was a religious political ideological cult.

This would mean, that based on the recent terrorism. That nobody can make any such defamatory or truthful accusation on Trump. As it may lead to a distubance of the peace, by some of his followers. How absurd and insane would that be?

That nobody could ever make any form of criticism or ridicule of Trump, based on a fear that it may lead to a disturbance of the peace. That Trump supporters, have to be taken into consideration.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: ECHR ruling on defaming the Prophet Muhammed

Post by nicko on Sat Oct 27, 2018 5:35 am

Many people take the piss out of Jesus, so that doesn't matter then ?
avatar
nicko

Posts : 10333
Join date : 2013-12-07
Age : 77
Location : rainbow bridge

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ECHR ruling on defaming the Prophet Muhammed

Post by Tommy Monk on Sat Oct 27, 2018 1:18 pm

Fuck the ECHR!

_________________
“Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.” — Isaac Newton

'The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.'  — George Orwell
avatar
Tommy Monk

Posts : 21083
Join date : 2014-02-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ECHR ruling on defaming the Prophet Muhammed

Post by Guest on Sat Oct 27, 2018 4:58 pm




Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: ECHR ruling on defaming the Prophet Muhammed

Post by Guest on Sat Oct 27, 2018 5:02 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/27/ireland-to-remove-of-blasphemy-and-to-re-elect-president-exit-polls-show

So on the day Ireland has voted to remove the Blasphemy law. It is now been rendered redundent by the ECHR. Which has now introduced blasphemy laws, in regards to Islam

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: ECHR ruling on defaming the Prophet Muhammed

Post by Guest on Sat Oct 27, 2018 5:16 pm

"Sacrilege may upset people, but it does not violate their rights. By abandoning that distinction, avowed defenders of Enlightenment values capitulate to the forces of darkness."

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: ECHR ruling on defaming the Prophet Muhammed

Post by Tommy Monk on Sat Oct 27, 2018 10:40 pm

Speaking the truth about someone is never 'defaming' them... it is simply speaking the truth...!



_________________
“Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.” — Isaac Newton

'The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.'  — George Orwell
avatar
Tommy Monk

Posts : 21083
Join date : 2014-02-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ECHR ruling on defaming the Prophet Muhammed

Post by Vintage on Sat Oct 27, 2018 10:49 pm

I can't see that a blasphemy law for Islam can be right, if the EU is in pursuit of equality it can't possibly do this, it surely has to be all or nothing. It has to be blasphemy laws for all religions or none. If we have blasphemy laws for all religions I think we will at least stagnate or at worst we will regress.

Vintage

Posts : 1276
Join date : 2013-08-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ECHR ruling on defaming the Prophet Muhammed

Post by heavenlyfather on Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:04 pm

This is clearly the implementation of Sharia law and that should be enough to scare anyone of good conscience.

_________________
John 3:16 the best news you will ever hear
avatar
heavenlyfather

Posts : 43
Join date : 2018-10-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ECHR ruling on defaming the Prophet Muhammed

Post by Raggamuffin on Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:17 pm

The blasphemy law was abolished in England anyway. I presume that applies to Islam?

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 31343
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ECHR ruling on defaming the Prophet Muhammed

Post by heavenlyfather on Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:19 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:The blasphemy law was abolished in England anyway. I presume that applies to Islam?

that's a dangerous assumption...

_________________
John 3:16 the best news you will ever hear
avatar
heavenlyfather

Posts : 43
Join date : 2018-10-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ECHR ruling on defaming the Prophet Muhammed

Post by Tommy Monk on Mon Oct 29, 2018 12:15 pm

There are many who want to hide the ugly truth about Islam and all the murdurering robbing and raping done by the psychopathic peado leader Mohammed and his gang of bandits...

_________________
“Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.” — Isaac Newton

'The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.'  — George Orwell
avatar
Tommy Monk

Posts : 21083
Join date : 2014-02-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ECHR ruling on defaming the Prophet Muhammed

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum