ECHR rules that defamation of Mohammed doesn't count as free expression

[dowie]

saw this just now on Maajid Nawaz's Facebook feed - he linked to the following article

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

but there seems to be more details in the below (not sure about the site itself tho... Daily Fail also seems to have picked up the story)

https://reason.com/blog/2018/10/25/european-court-womans-defamation-muhamma

Some dodgy reasoning here from the judges:

The woman, identified only as E.S., led what she billed as informational seminars on Islam back in 2009. At one of those seminars, she called Muhammad a pedophile because of his marriage to a girl named Aisha, who was just 6 years old at the time. "A 56-year-old and a 6-year-old? What do you call that? Give me an example? What do we call it, if it is not pedophilia?" she said.

In 2011, an Austrian court convicted her of "disparaging" Islam and fined her 480 euros, the ECHR said. E.S. fought the conviction on several grounds. For one, she said her statements about Muhammad were true. She also claimed that she wasn't defaming the prophet but rather contributing "to a public debate" about him, according to the ECHR. Finally, she argued that religious groups should have to "tolerate even severe criticism."

ruling, a seven-judge panel argues that while Muhammad may have married a 6-year-old, there's a difference between child marriage and pedophilia:

by accusing Muhammad of paedophilia, the applicant had merely sought to defame him, without providing evidence that his primary sexual interest in Aisha had been her not yet having reached puberty or that his other wives or concubines had been similarly young. In particular, the applicant had disregarded the fact that the marriage with Aisha had continued until the Prophet's death, when she had already turned eighteen and had therefore passed the age of puberty.

The court also rejects the woman's "public debate" argument. E.S. claimed to be an expert on the subject of Islam. As a result, the court replies, "she had to have been aware that her statements were partly based on untrue facts and apt to arouse (justified) indignation in others." The purpose of her statements was not to contribute to a public debate, the court declares, but rather to show "that Muhammad was not a worthy subject of worship."

Right, so because he carried on after she turned 18 then she's wrong to question what we'd call it... accounts seem to vary but apparently the marriage was consummated at around 9 or 10 years of age. (Sure standards varied back then, IIRC Mary married Jospeh back when she was a young teenager and he was an old man) But to fine someone for highlighting this or questioning what we'd call it today seems ridiculous and the argument highlighting that he carried on the marriage past 18 seems laughable.

I think we need stronger protections for freedom of speech tbh...

 

[A2Z]

Who? What?

Who cares about Muhammad whoever he is?

 

[dowie]

Who cares about Muhammad whoever he is?

Well that is offensive and if a local court were to fine you for saying it then the ECHR might well back them up

As for your question of who cares about him, a significant portion of the world's population, about a billion people or so.

 

[A2Z]

Well that is offensive and if a local court were to fine you for saying it then the ECHR might well back them up

Yea ok then. Keep posting your rubbish.

 

[dowie]

Yea ok then. Keep posting your rubbish.

If you're not interested in the thread then don't post in it, you're hardly in a position to talk about posting rubbish given your first post in here. If you want to attempt to formulate a point of view or attempt to engage in some form of discussion then please do go ahead.

 

[CREATIVE!11]

To be fair all right wing nutters have said it's matter of time before this happens. You won't be allowed to critise Islam at all without being silenced or it being labelled as hate speech.

The fact that we indulge any religious idiots will be our undoing. Free speech > sky pixies....

 

[robfosters]

Would defamation of christ be treated in the same manner?

 

[mmj_uk]

So according to the ECHR it doesn't infringe upon her right to free expression but in the future everyone will be too scared to say it because it will result in a criminal conviction. hmm okay then, the quote in my signature couldn't be more relevant here.

 

[200sols]

To be fair all right wing nutters have said it's matter of time before this happens. You won't be allowed to critise Islam at all without being silenced or it being labelled as hate speech.

The fact that we indulge any religious idiots will be our undoing. Free speech > sky pixies....

I see you call them nutters, but it’s actually happening...

 

[The Running Man]

Well is it actually defamation though?

 

[Diddums]

Dowie, do yourself (and all of us) a favour: stop posting drivel.

 

[Destination]

Do we have a blasphemy law in the UK?
The ROI is seeking to repeal its version of the law this weekend at referendum.
Obviously Austria does have such a law, and in this case they chose to enforce it.

I don't see why religion should be subject to special restrictions.
Personally i don't support a blasphemy law.
Incitement and hatred on religious grounds or any grounds is a different matter, and what I can tell from that which has been reported, is the words stated don't appear to be any form of incitement.

How can one defame a dead person?

 

[Burnsy2023]

Everyone should read the ruling before commenting.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Do we have a blasphemy law in the UK?
The ROI is seeking to repeal its version of the law this weekend at referendum.
Obviously Austria does have such a law, and in this case they chose to enforce it.

I don't see why religion should be subject to special restrictions.
Personally i don't support a blasphemy law.
Incitement and hatred on religious grounds or any grounds is a different matter, and what I can tell from that which has been reported, is the words stated don't appear to be any form of incitement.

How can one defame a dead person?

It's worth noting this is the piece of Austrian law in question:

Section 188 Malicious Gossip and Defamation Against Persons in Political Life
(1) If malicious gossip (Section 186) is committed publicly, in a meeting or through dissemination of writings (Section 11 subsection (3)) against a person involved in the political life of the people with a motive connected with the position of the insulted person in public life, and the act is capable of making his public work substantially more difficult, then the punishment shall be imprisonment from three months to five years.

(2) A defamation (Section 187) under the same prerequisites shall be punished with imprisonment from six months to five years.

For context:

Section 187 Defamation
Whoever, against his better judgment, asserts or disseminates an untrue fact in relation to another, which maligns him or disparages him in the public opinion or is capable of endangering his credit, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than two years or a fine, and, if the act was committed publicly, in a meeting or through dissemination of writings (Section 11 subsection (3)), with imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine.

 

[peterwalkley]

Reading between the lines a bit, it looks like the courts found her guilty of trolling.

I'm not convinced that what she was doing counts as free speech. Running an 'information seminar' to spout your bile is a bit different to having an honest debate or expressing an opinion that others will disagree with.

 

[Destination]

I have read the ruling.
I still disagree with blasphemy laws in general.
Austria has one, they chose to enforce it.
Seems odd if this child marriage was consummated at age 9, that the chap who does that isn't termed a paedophile.
IS there any other instance of someone having sex with a 9 year old where that conclusion wouldn't be drawn, child marriage or not, the child living to 18 or not, his primary motivation being whatever the hell he likes, how can't it be termed this?

 

[Dis86]

So if you **** a kid, as long as you keep ****ing the kid until they're 18 all is cool? Good job echr, good job.

 

[Burnsy2023]

I still disagree with blasphemy laws in general.
Austria has one, they chose to enforce it.

Let's be clear, it's not a blasphemy law. Just like s5 of the Public Order Act 1988 isn't a blasphemy law.

 

[Destination]

It's worth noting this is the piece of Austrian law in question:
For context:

So in this case the 'person in political life' has been dead for over a thousand years?
Odd that one can defame under that ruling.

I agree with the trolling comment. I think her rallies likely were to incite. I think the Uk law may have prosecuted her under a different fashion.
I still don't agree with blasphemy laws.

 

[dowie]

Would defamation of christ be treated in the same manner?

I'm not sure, for example the Council of Europe has been trying to move towards getting rid of blasphemy as an offence

http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=17569&lang=en

With regard to blasphemy, religious insults and hate speech against persons on the grounds of their religion, the state is responsible for determining what should count as criminal offences within the limits imposed by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. In this connection, the Assembly considers that blasphemy, as an insult to a religion, should not be deemed a criminal offence.

On the other hand they seem to be concerned about causing offence if it is deemed "gratuitous" or an intentional insult etc..

https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2007)006-e

In a democratic society, religious groups must tolerate, as other groups must, critical public statements and debate about their activities, teachings and beliefs, provided that such criticism does not amount to intentional and gratuitous insult and does not constitute incitement to disturb the public peace or to discriminate against adherents of a particular religion.

States have an obligation to protect religious beliefs from unwarranted or offensive attacks, in order to guarantee religious peace

I guess if people rioted after watching the "offensive" and "gratuitous" Jerry Springer:The Opera then they'd be right behind Stewart Lee and Richard Thomas getting prosecuted.

I completely disagree with this notion of protection a belief from insult simply because there is a magical sky pixie attached to it, I don't think there should be any special status afforded to religious beliefs.

The potential for hostile reaction/violent tantrums of members of a religion certainly shouldn't be a special reason to offer extra protection/mollycoddling for them.

Dowie, do yourself (and all of us) a favour: stop posting drivel.

Do yourself a favour, jog on and stick to the simple/inane if you're not interested in the thread. I'm sure you can think of more things the youth should be nostalgic about or whatever floats your boat... it's silly to vent in a thread you have no interest in when clearly various others are engaging in the subject. You get salty at mundane things like reality TV shows and then you get salty at the opposite end of the spectrum, a serious topic about freedom of expression. I don't really know what your problem is but if you're not going to or aren't capable of adding anything constructive then why bother?