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

[FoxEye]

This bit is ridiculous.

Presenting objects of religious worship in a provocative way capable of hurting the feelings of the followers of that religion could be conceived as a malicious violation of the spirit of tolerance, which was one of the bases of a democratic society.

So I hope, therefore, that this is not just an exception for Islam. I hope now the courts will clamp down on parody of all religions. Scientology (lol), Mormons, Quakers, Vegans... etc.

I hope now that it will be an offence to mock everything and anything someone might decide to worship.

I really do hope that (well actually no I don't) that all the South Park episodes, comedy sketches, etc, taking the pee out of all religions or persons of significance to religion are henceforth banned from being aired, discussed, or enjoyed.

What I really hope this isn't is special treatment for Islam. Because people are **** scared of the consequences (i.e. violence).

 

[Orionaut]

I hope now that it will be an offense to mock everything and anything someone might decide to worship.

YOU DISSED MY PASTA!

 

[enkoda]

Facts – The applicant held seminars with the title “Basic information on Islam” at the right-wing Freedom Party Education Institute. At one such seminar, referring to a marriage which Muhammad had concluded with Aisha, a six-year old, and consummated when she had been nine, she stated inter alia “[Muhammad] liked to do it with children”, “the thing with Aisha and child sex” and “a 56-year-old and a six-year-old? What do you call that? Give me an example? What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?”

In 2011, as a result of these statements, the applicant was convicted of disparagement of religious precepts pursuant to Article 188 of the Criminal Code. She was sentenced to pay a fine of EUR 480, or serve 60 days of imprisonment in the event of default. The domestic courts made a distinction between child marriages and paedophilia. In their opinion, 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.

Here's some things to ponder over:

Firstly - at no point did E.S. actually accuse Muhammad of being a paedophile.
Yes, she likened his behaviour to that of paedophilia, but in the context of her quote it qualifies as a rhetorical question for which she was convicted.
It's rather worrying that a court ruling hinged so much on the correct definition of the word "paedophile" and it's usage, yet failed miserably to draw the distinction between a question and an outright accusation.

Secondly - no Muslims complained about the content of this seminar, the case was brought about by an undercover journalist who passed on secret recordings to the Austrian judiciary. We've now stepped into some bizarre reality where being offended by proxy is enough to get someone prosecuted.

Thirdly - part of the justification for the ruling was that E.S. was seeking to defame Muhammad by saying things about him that weren't factually correct. So now, any claim against Muhammad that can't be proven to be true must also count as being deliberately defamatory and inflammatory because a legal precedent has been set.

 

[asim18]

I see you're @'ing me, happy to respond. What is not "objective" about the statement? Mainstream Islam says that Mohammed consummated a relationship with a nine year old girl (I.e. child molestation and rape). Historical accounts support it. You say "objective" but you seem to mean "uncritical". The two are very different things. You've accused me of lying. I take that seriously - show me anywhere I have lied.

You are arguing that only approved people be allowed to criticise Islam and comment upon it. Authoritarian censorship. Furthermore read your own quotes and consider, please, what is actually being argued. That the relationship continuing until the girl was over eighteen is a mitigating factor, that his other wives and mistresses were older matters. How can you look yourself in the mirror when you side with such arguments? We would call a man who rapes a nine year old a paedophile today - Her statement is accurate. And she has been punished for saying it. Would you have a different position at all if she had called Mohammed a Child Molester?
​

Are you saying criticising mohammed's sexual preference is criticising Islam? It's not. Mohammed's sexual presence has got nothing to do with Islam nor what one needs to do to be regarded as Muslim.

Do you think sexual preference is an internal psychogenic manifestation or a telepathically attained manifestation?

You seem to be assuming if someone becomes a muslim, that they also magically become a peado too just because mo was one.

 

[bainbridge]

Placing modern values and morals on something which is literally ancient history is pathetic. Mary was about 12 when Joseph supposedly didn't have sex with her but just like the case in point that was years ago. 2018 to be exact.

When early humans mated with neanderthals were they guilty of beastiality?

 

[asim18]

I see you're @'ing me, happy to respond. What is not "objective" about the statement? Mainstream Islam says that Mohammed consummated a relationship with a nine year old girl (I.e. child molestation and rape). Historical accounts support it. You say "objective" but you seem to mean "uncritical". The two are very different things. You've accused me of lying. I take that seriously - show me anywhere I have lied.​

How can you say consummating a marriage to a child is "molestation and rape" if you are unsure whether those things were even conceptualised back then?

You're also assuming that just because he married a child that he had an exclusive sexual attraction.

Weren't children used in professional porn productions since up to the 70s? Surely the difference between 13 and 23 weren't conceptualised and is it fair to say those porn stars were "child molesters"?

 

[asim18]

Placing modern values and morals on something which is literally ancient history is pathetic. Mary was about 12 when Joseph supposedly didn't have sex with her but just like the case in point that was years ago. 2018 to be exact.

When early humans mated with neanderthals were they guilty of beastiality?

You're absolutely right.

In fact the first time I even heard that mo married a child was some non-muslim dude on a forum desperately trying to find external causes of peadophilia. Some people seem to think mo liking kids means other people CAN like kids just because mo did. It's bizarre.

 

[Energize]

Do you even understand what the word conceptualise means? It seems not.

Asking how we can call it rape before we developed the modern idea of molestation is a bit like asking how we can say the earth went around the Sun before Galileo came up with the idea.

 

[enkoda]

You seem to be assuming if someone becomes a muslim, that they also magically become a peado too just because mo was one.

You called him a paedo!

Quick, someone call the ECHR so he can be prosecuted!!!

 

[B&W]

Placing modern values and morals on something which is literally ancient history is pathetic. Mary was about 12 when Joseph supposedly didn't have sex with her but just like the case in point that was years ago. 2018 to be exact.

When early humans mated with neanderthals were they guilty of beastiality?

Not much more to be said tbh.

 

[h4rm0ny]

I gave you the exact quote of you giving a fanciful interpretation.[/quote]

No, you didn't. You called me a liar, I asked you to back that up. You can't. You just claim you gave a quote of a "fanciful interpretation". Be specific - show me anywhere that I've lied or withdraw that.

​

Here's some things to ponder over:

Firstly - at no point did E.S. actually accuse Muhammad of being a paedophile.
Yes, she likened his behaviour to that of paedophilia, but in the context of her quote it qualifies as a rhetorical question for which she was convicted.
It's rather worrying that a court ruling hinged so much on the correct definition of the word "paedophile" and it's usage, yet failed miserably to draw the distinction between a question and an outright accusation.

Secondly - no Muslims complained about the content of this seminar, the case was brought about by an undercover journalist who passed on secret recordings to the Austrian judiciary. We've now stepped into some bizarre reality where being offended by proxy is enough to get someone prosecuted.

Thirdly - part of the justification for the ruling was that E.S. was seeking to defame Muhammad by saying things about him that weren't factually correct. So now, any claim against Muhammad that can't be proven to be true must also count as being deliberately defamatory and inflammatory because a legal precedent has been set.

Are you saying criticising mohammed's sexual preference is criticising Islam? It's not.

Well the ECHR ruling implies that they think so, as they have prosecuted someone for being offensive to Islam and Muslims because that someone criticised Mohammed. So I presume given the above you are against this ECHR ruling?

As to whether it is or not, Mohammed is the central religious figure of Islam, the belief that he was the direct representative of God on Earth and that his life is an example to all, are fundamental parts of Islam. I don't see how you can say "Mohammed was a child molester" without critiquing the notion that putting him on a pedestal and praising him is also wrong. Unless like a couple of people in this thread, you wish to say child molestation is okay.

​

You seem to be assuming if someone becomes a muslim, that they also magically become a peado too just because mo was one.

Nowhere have I said that. If you have, through some bizarre mental process arrived at the above, I'm happy to clear up that this is not what I think nor is it the case. As strawmen go, we could burn Edward Woodward in that one!
​

 

[h4rm0ny]

How can you say consummating a marriage to a child is "molestation and rape" if you are unsure whether those things were even conceptualised back then?

WTF? Do you believe that a nine year old can meaningfully consent to a 40 year old man today, yes / no? Do you believe that a 40 year old man having sex with a nine-year old child today is right, yes / no? If not to these questions then by what possible process can you think that those answers change in Mohammed's time. Because the only process I could see for that would be if you believe whether or not raping a child is wrong or not is dependent on whether society thinks it is. And if you do, then you have become very badly lost.

You're also assuming that just because he married a child that he had an exclusive sexual attraction.

Weren't children used in professional porn productions since up to the 70s? Surely the difference between 13 and 23 weren't conceptualised and is it fair to say those porn stars were "child molesters"?

I have absolutely NO idea what is going through your head that you think "ah-ha! If I point out we have child pornographers in the modern era, h4rm0ny will have to admit that Mohammed wasn't so bad." You have just likened Mohammed to people making child porn movies. Does it occur to you that if you said that at a place where someone reported it to the ECHR, you'd be sentenced for what you just said the same way this woman was. Best go report yourself.

And no, I'm not aware that making porn films with 13 year olds was acceptable or legal in the 70s. More Argumentum Ex Anum. I'm actually just going to leave this to Energize who put it more than clearly enough:

Asking how we can call it rape before we developed the modern idea of molestation is a bit like asking how we can say the earth went around the Sun before Galileo came up with the idea.

People in this thread making apologetics for child molestation for political reasons disgust me. Just as the ECHR ruling doing the same, disgusts most right thinking people.​

 

[h4rm0ny]

Placing modern values and morals on something which is literally ancient history is pathetic. Mary was about 12 when Joseph supposedly didn't have sex with her but just like the case in point that was years ago. 2018 to be exact.

Please tell me more about how you know how old a possibly apocryphal Christian figure was twelve years old or how some theory on it has any relevance to whether or not one should be allowed to criticise Mohammed? There's no logic in "If (Mary might 12 years old and might exist ) THEN {Criticizing Mohammed = Crime})"

This is nonsense.

When early humans mated with neanderthals were they guilty of beastiality?

Not unless you're some massive racial supremacist that regards Neanderthals as sub-human. Which you might be. But like the above, this goes far, far beyond whataboutism and right into the realms of not even a related argument. It's nonsense and barely worth addressing.
​

 

[asim18]

Whoa. What a bizarre rant lol. You think anyone here thinks rape and child abuse is ok? Bizarre.

I'm guessing you don't listen to Michael Jackson's music any more? Does hearing billie jean immediately remind you of child molestation?

No one praises Mohammed because he was a child molester. Same way no one is supporting child abuse when someone is praising Michael Jackson.

Apparently in your world Michael Jackson's sell out tour sold out because people supported child molestation.

Your brain is twisted.

 

[asim18]

Your entire argument seems to stem from some bizarre belief that people seem to support people only because they abused children and not because of any other possible reason.

 

[asim18]

As to whether it is or not, Mohammed is the central religious figure of Islam, the belief that he was the direct representative of God on Earth and that his life is an example to all, are fundamental parts of Islam. I don't see how you can say "Mohammed was a child molester" without critiquing the notion that putting him on a pedestal and praising him is also wrong. Unless like a couple of people in this thread, you wish to say child molestation is okay.​

Right so again. According to your logic, people who love micheal jackson are wrong to do so because they are not supporting his music, but they are supporting child abuse instead??? And if anyone is supporting mo it's only because he married a child, and not because of his stories/fairytales?

 

[asim18]

WTF? Do you believe that a nine year old can meaningfully consent to a 40 year old man today, yes / no? Do you believe that a 40 year old man having sex with a nine-year old child today is right, yes / no? If not to these questions then by what possible process can you think that those answers change in Mohammed's time. Because the only process I could see for that would be if you believe whether or not raping a child is wrong or not is dependent on whether society thinks it is. And if you do, then you have become very badly lost.​

No and No. What makes you think that the fact that the idea of sexual consent was non existent 2000 years ago, means that anyone on this forum today believes a 9 year old can consent today???? This is just bizarre.

You have lost the plot in this thread, sad to see to be honest.

 

[Hotwired]

I gave you the exact quote of you giving a fanciful interpretation.​

No, you didn't. You called me a liar, I asked you to back that up. You can't. You just claim you gave a quote of a "fanciful interpretation". Be specific - show me anywhere that I've lied or withdraw that​

You're convincing me that you have a high level of obtuseness because I quoted and replied in standard form the first time, said as much the second time and for the hat-trick I'm screenshotting it.

Your entire argument seems to stem from some bizarre belief that people seem to support people only because they abused children and not because of any other possible reason.

Boils down to depending on your bias it is more or less acceptable to drop a general slur against Muslims in a claimed educational setting. The modern abuse of the word "paedophile" goes so far beyond correct use that it's primary use is an insult and a social slur to anyone associated with it.

The court saw it exactly as being used for malicious purpose and thereby against the local law regarding being allowed to be peacefully religious.

The only worthy argument I care for is that people should be allowed to say whatever they want. The flip side is that humans cannot 100% be relied on to behave themselves so in all countries laws exist with a pre-decided judgement that X language is not acceptable in X situation.

This is one of those.

 

[Caracus2k]

Right so again. According to your logic, people who love micheal jackson are wrong to do so because they are not supporting his music, but they are supporting child abuse instead??? And if anyone is supporting mo it's only because he married a child, and not because of his stories/fairytales?

I can listen to Michael Jackson record or watch a film made by Roman Polanaki and appreciate the artistry without it needing to agree with the artists personal activities.

The same can't be said for adherents of a religion when regarding their religious texts and the purported sayings and actions of a prophet who is held to be a moral exemplar within the religion.

 

[h4rm0ny]

You're convincing me that you have a high level of obtuseness because I quoted and replied in standard form the first time, said as much the second time and for the hat-trick I'm screenshotting it.

Yeah, I know what you quoted. The issue is that it's not me telling any kind of lie. Your screenshotting it just highlights that because your reply is a complete non-sequitur. Here:

Boils down to depending on your bias it is more or less acceptable to drop a general slur against Muslims in a claimed educational setting. The modern abuse of the word "paedophile" goes so far beyond correct use that it's primary use is an insult and a social slur to anyone associated with it.

Firstly, she didn't make a "general slur against Muslims". She said that today Mohammed would be called a paedophile. Which he would be. The line you quote above is self-explanatory: your suggestion that only certain approved people should be allowed to criticise Islam is a terrible one. Having a body (inevitably the State) that approves whether or not you are qualified to criticise a religion is wrong.

The court saw it exactly as being used for malicious purpose and thereby against the local law regarding being allowed to be peacefully religious.

Yep - hence why the court's ruling is terrible. In no way indicates anywhere I've lied. You can't back up your accusation so withdraw it.

The only worthy argument I care for is that people should be allowed to say whatever they want. The flip side is that humans cannot 100% be relied on to behave themselves so in all countries laws exist with a pre-decided judgement that X language is not acceptable in X situation.

Your two sides are not reconcilable. You are advocating for Free Speech only for approved people.