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

[Destination]

Yes i comprehend the idol and the not having them aspect, what i don’t get is how you can name every child after him and not see the issue with you making the man the idol instead of their actual god.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Yes i comprehend the idol and the not having them aspect, what i don’t get is how you can name every child after him and not see the issue with you making the man the idol instead of their actual god.

Ah well, if you're asking me for rigorous consistency, that might be beyond my abilities. I think it's primarily a Western European thing to avoid names of specific religious figures. For example, more than one British person going to post-Christianity Africa was surprised to find their cook was named Jesus or being driven along by St. Paul.

 

[Destination]

Indeed true, but yet again they don’t like to say his name without adding peace be upon him, as if it would be a bad word to say the name without saying the little words after.
I would say they are idoloising a man in the name of their religion, rather than respecting the edict he gave them in the book.
But what would i know, the european court decidied after all that a lerson in political life can be dead a thousand years and still be classed as such.

 

[enkoda]

We can debate the whole 'free speech' thing until we're blue in the face, but look at it from this perspective: it's only Muslims who claim you can't insult the prophet, therefore holding others to account for whatever's said about him is imposing Islamic ideology onto others, i.e. literally forcing blasphemy laws on people who aren't Muslim.

If the issue centres around Muhammad being called a paedophile because it is technically incorrect, what label is more suited to a 50+ year old man who had sex with a 9 year old girl?

Indeed true, but yet again they don’t like to say his name without adding peace be upon him, as if it would be a bad word to say the name without saying the little words after.
I would say they are idoloising a man in the name of their religion, rather than respecting the edict he gave them in the book.
But what would i know, the european court decidied after all that a lerson in political life can be dead a thousand years and still be classed as such.

There's no point in trying to use common sense, logic and reason in a game where the goalposts can not only be moved, but you can also face being sent off for kicking the ball and expect violent reprisals if you score.

 

[Hotwired]

Pointing out that someone venerated as a perfect example is believed (by those same people) to have been a child molester may be a common criticism of Islam. I don't believe that makes it generic. Nor, more importantly, less valid a criticism. Besides, what is at issue here is not actually that criticism, but that courts are ruling that people are not allowed to make it. And that is a very dangerous and wrong thing.

I am not obliged to argue in the opposite direction to anything. No matter how much you load the outcome of this ruling with foreboding the outcome was not shocking considering relevant local laws and international laws.

No I just disagree with your statement, free speech does exist as already explained. It is both pointless and silly to claim otherwise or to attempt to make some non-point where you define free speech to include absolutely everything with no restrictions. It shouldn't even need to be explained that there are some limits to free speech, even in the US, it is a complete waste of time and detracts from the discussion but that is seemingly what you want to achieve.

I pointed out the legal restrictions on free speech in this two replies ago and you decide to say it back to me now for the second time as if you didn't understand the words and you were having an original thought.

Yet you're using words like pointless and silly not to mention wasting time and detracting from discussion? Raising the bar for such words as you type.

The only interference in the lives of others here is with respect to the woman being fined, which you still seem to rather foolishly support.

You don't know that she had no motive of productive debate, you need to distinguish between someone holding a view you don't like and then making up silly assertions like that.

hmmm that's debatable, you're still defending this nonsense, shutting down criticism of religion with fines etc.. is ridiculous it is rather sad to see people so far gone that they defend it, especailly when using mental gymnastics to claim otherwise. I believe she still has a possible angle for appeal left, we'll have to see whether the ECHR can redeem itself.

Intellectual dishonesty from @dowie because, who knows, when he says too far gone it sounds like a projection. The woman was very far from innocent and dishonestly broke local rules. If it was online it would be filed under trolling.

E.S. promoted an educational seminar of objectivity on religion and proceeded to pitch an anti-islamic agenda including claims she couldn't substantiate.

If we strip out the lies of promoting an objective seminar and stick to claims that can be substantiated she's on legal ground to agitate. But that wasn't how it happened so there we are, deception and reaching for slurs are not a basis for productive debate.

I have no sympathy for her stunt failing and do not believe criticism is prevented in any meaningful way as a result.

The mental gymnastics going on are your desperate attempts to pigeonhole unappealing views as dismissable. Meanwhile I not only understand your view, I say I neither care for it or buy into taking pro or anti religious sides on this.

A major difference is that I recognised communication on this as being circular several posts ago but you see value in keeping it rolling, can you describe why you care for something you don't want to hear.

Lets hear the stale repetition again as if you think you're saying something new.

 

[Oneshotbigshot]

Edit

 

[h4rm0ny]

We can debate the whole 'free speech' thing until we're blue in the face, but look at it from this perspective: it's only Muslims who claim you can't insult the prophet, therefore holding others to account for whatever's said about him is imposing Islamic ideology onto others, i.e. literally forcing blasphemy laws on people who aren't Muslim.

Very well put. This is an imposition of other people's religion on society in general.

If the issue centres around Muhammad being called a paedophile because it is technically incorrect, what label is more suited to a 50+ year old man who had sex with a 9 year old girl?

Well as I remarked earlier, the absolute technically correct label would be Child Molester as that is the actual criminal act. But as I also remarked, I doubt the ruling would be different and I'm certain the same few people here who support the ruling would suddenly stop supporting it, because in both cases it's about thinking the feelings of some Muslims should trump Free Speech.

I am not obliged to argue in the opposite direction to anything. No matter how much you load the outcome of this ruling with foreboding the outcome was not shocking considering relevant local laws and international laws.

You'll find that many people are shocked that the European Court of Human Rights has come down on the side of what is, for all practical purposes, a Blasphemy Law. That's why it's news. And I pick you up on dismissing arguments as "generic" if they are not and if you use that as a synonym for invalid. If you want to say pointing out their chief religious figure was in all probability a child molester is a "common" criticism of Islam, then sure. But that makes it neither generic (it is specific) nor invalid.

 

[dowie]

I pointed out the legal restrictions on free speech in this two replies ago and you decide to say it back to me now for the second time as if you didn't understand the words and you were having an original thought.

Not at all, I'm pointing out the opposite. Stating free speech doesn't exist is rather silly/irrelevant. There are protections for free speech in various countries around the world, we both know this so I'm really not sure what point you were trying to make by stating it doesn't exist?

"herp derp you can't shout bomb in a theatre" etc.. ? Really original.

Intellectual dishonesty from @dowie because, who knows, when he says too far gone it sounds like a projection. The woman was very far from innocent and dishonestly broke local rules. If it was online it would be filed under trolling.

She wasn't "very far from innocent" and the local rules shouldn't really exist in a modern democracy. Arguably the ECHR should have given more weight to her right to free expression.

E.S. promoted an educational seminar of objectivity on religion and proceeded to pitch an anti-islamic agenda including claims she couldn't substantiate.

I love the way you try to frame in order to justify your mental gymnastics - the seminar was titled basic information on Islam and was held at the Freedom Party Institute, you'd have to be particularly stupid to assume there wouldn't be any criticism of Islam. You don't need to venerate Mo in order to be objective then again there isn't a legal obligation to be completely objective in the first place, she questioned what he would be called today and she was correct.

If a libertarian institute were to hold a "basic information on Communism" seminar would you be doing the same mental gymnastics if they then criticised Jo Stalin? Perhaps they could defame him by referring to him as a psychopath which could then be argued against as not being technically correct as he was enforcing an ideology when killing millions not suffering from mental illness.

If we strip out the lies of promoting an objective seminar and stick to claims that can be substantiated she's on legal ground to agitate. But that wasn't how it happened so there we are, deception and reaching for slurs are not a basis for productive debate.

Specifically what lies?

A major difference is that I recognised communication on this as being circular several posts ago but you see value in keeping it rolling, can you describe why you care for something you don't want to hear.

This is rather dishonest of you, I'm merely replying to your quotes where you've repeated the same stale arguments, I pointed out that we could agree to disagree several posts ago. You've since thrown in additional silliness like "there is no such thing as free speech" etc..

 

[h4rm0ny]

Specifically what lies?

I think Hotwired interprets Objective as Neutral, Unbiased, All Sides Represented. Which would be all well and good except what we really mean is factual, accurate, no subjective interpretations. And I believe her statement was all of those things.

 

[Energize]

E.S. was unable to prove this claim of paedophilia in several ways:

She wouldn't need to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, only on the balance of probability given this regards defamation. I think the information she cites is sufficient to prove her claim on the balance of probability.

This is all rather besides the point though because the ruling disregards her right to freedom of expression with regards to religious views. Muhammad practically represents a mythological character so the very notion of defamation is absurd.

 

[Caracus2k]

A policeman described as a "committed paedophile" has been convicted of raping a 13-year-old girl.

PC Ian Naude, 30, joined Cheshire Constabulary "to gain the keys to a sweetshop" through access to potential victims, Liverpool Crown Court heard.

Naude, of Market Drayton in Shropshire, was also found guilty of four charges of attempting to arrange the commission of a child sex offence and one charge of arranging a child sex offence, relating to five complainants aged between 12 and 15.

The father of one, originally from South Africa, previously admitted 31 offences relating to grooming underage girls via a fake Facebook and Snapchat profile.

So who thinks Naude can sue whoever called him a paedophille (and expect the Echr to back him up) on the basis that:

1) as a father of a child he didn't have an exclusive or arguably a primary interest in children.

2) females from the ages of 12 upwards (with 12 being the youngest he had tried to groom and 13 being the age of the rape victim) are unlikely to be 'pre pubescent' and therefore the term 'paedophille' is incorrect (as in the medical/ psychology defintion it refers strictly to pre pubescent children only)

The average age for girls to begin puberty is 11

Maybe he could also argue that he would be happy to continue having sex with the girl, aged 13 at the time of the offence, till after her 16 birthday aswell?

Edit: looks like the trial judge made /repeated the comment! A person in a bit more of an 'official' role then a member of the public hosting a seminar.

Summing up, Judge Goldstone said: “The defence concede that this is a case which has fairly depicted the defendant as a cold, uncaring, selfish and cruel paedophile who has on occasion stooped as low as coercive and threatening behaviour, including blackmail of young girls, some of whom have been properly characterised as vulnerable.”

 

[h4rm0ny]

So who thinks Naude can sue whoever called him a paedophille (and expect the Echr to back him up) on the basis that:

1) as a father of a child he didn't have an exclusive or arguably a primary interest in children.

2) females from the ages of 12 upwards (with 12 being the youngest he had tried to groom and 13 being the age of the rape victim) are unlikely to be 'pre pubescent' and therefore the term 'paedophille' is incorrect (as in the medical/ psychology defintion it refers strictly to pre pubescent children only)



Maybe he could also argue that he would be happy to continue having sex with the girl, aged 13 at the time of the offence, till after her 16 birthday aswell?

Edit: looks like the trial judge made /repeated the comment! A person in a bit more of an 'official' role then a member of the public hosting a seminar.

I await the rush of posters saying "it's different because society was different back then". As if that matters to the child who was raped.

 

[Energize]

I await the rush of posters saying "it's different because society was different back then". As if that matters to the child who was raped.

It's termed moral relativism, the idea that morality changes based on culture etc. I find the concept absurd, the same ethics apply to everyone regardless of culture, race, gender etc.

 

[enkoda]

Maybe the girls were wearing lacy underwear and "asking for it". Oh no, that's in Ireland, my bad.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46207304

 

[dowie]

So who thinks Naude can sue whoever called him a paedophille (and expect the Echr to back him up) on the basis that:

If anything it just highlights how stupid the case in the OP is - I mean it is yet another example of exactly what we'd call someone who ****s a kid - we do indeed call them a paedo today without worrying about any technical definition - she was quite right to point that out...

 

[h4rm0ny]

It's termed moral relativism, the idea that morality changes based on culture etc. I find the concept absurd, the same ethics apply to everyone regardless of culture, race, gender etc.

Fully agree. Yet in this very thread we have a couple of posters doing exactly that. Apologetics for child molestation here by indup and others, are ******* disgusting.

 

[Johno please?]

Not at all, I'm pointing out the opposite. Stating free speech doesn't exist is rather silly/irrelevant. There are protections for free speech in various countries around the world, we both know this so I'm really not sure what point you were trying to make by stating it doesn't exist?

.

The count dankula joke and people quoting song lyrics and being arrested amongst many other cases show we obviously don't have freedom of speech like they do in the US for example.

 

[Hotwired]

Well in this country you do not have freedom to verbally abuse a wide range of human categories. Austria added religion to the list we have.

Despite the circle of same minded posters agreeing with each other if I tell you that me and my mate say Bob Smith is a thief. It is a fact that me and my mate said Bob Smith is a thief. That doesn't mean Bob Smith is a thief but I'm standing there selling it as weight to my words that Bob Smith is a thief.

Thus when taken to court and forced to prove it I have a problem since what me and my mate think of Bob Smith is completely worthless as evidence of the actual claim I was making.

That's the problem that I say E.S. ran into. Resulting in falling on her face twice because it's hard to make a claim of fact over 1000 years into the past before a court.

My opinion is that the court put a great deal of weight on deception and making claims without enough proof. So, remove any illusion of impartiality and add the words "in my opinion" and you're set yes?

The same recipe is used by rent-a-gobs who get regular spots in publications to add flavour between factual articles. Casually defame persons various and derate its value to whatever anyone thinks your opinion is worth.

That would be the obvious bypass of the Austrian protection given to people abiding the law and wishing to practice a religion in peace.

With different labels this is a cause for much mirth, someone with a career in trash talking a group of, by and large, law abiding citizens, tripping over their words and getting a legal kick in the ass. I certainly found it amusing.

However this is OCUK GD and the usual suspects plus a few more are offended by the sight of the words "muslim" and "paedophile", not to mention a sprinkling of actual degenerates who believe anyone disturbing the echos must be one of those labels themselves.

To make it clear for the confused I give no credit to anyone selling abuse on the back of their personal fantasies and that covers both those frothing at the mouth against muslims and also muslims incapable of living in a modern society.

Very controversial I know because there are no pro-muslims threads on OCUK (religion is banned) just the other type (which isn't banned) so we only get to see one set of incredibly intolerant people.

At any rate I don't believe E.S. is nearly as bad as some we have in the UK and with intelligent use of words she is capable of saying essentially the same thing and continuing her agitation against Islam while respecting Austrian law. Like I said, people already circumvent such legal protection/restriction in this country.

 

[Dis86]

Stuff

So you're saying that it was down to her to prove he was a paedo. OK, simple one, prove he was a prophet sent by divine providence.

 

[Hotwired]

The Austrian law protects the historic, irrational beliefs of people behaving themselves.

I say there's plenty to go on for agitation without having to reach for unstable claims considering that Islam is as fantastical as... all the others. That's simply with unadulterated transcripts of the religious text and no bonus interpretation.

If you find the slur essential to agitation then I refer you to paragraph 9 of my "Stuff".