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

Hotwired said:
The first thing I say to you, is that your mind needs to be in the gutter to think that. Although you were considerably less crass than @Dis86 and @Roar87.

The second is that I chose that to indicate a generally lower age of all things historically. For context of:

Because historically acceptable ages are generally considered underage today.
Click to expand...

My (our) minds need to be 'in the gutter'?

I (we) are commenting on a historically documented assertion that male, in his 50's, did indeed marry a six year old and consummate that marriage when she was nine.

As can be established it was not a particularly uncommon instance, at the time, and not one that would have been limited to the Arabian peninsula either.

And a practice, that I demonstrated, can't be particularly well rationalised, after the fact, by citing lower life expectancy figures as these mostly represent large amounts of children never being old enough to bear children in the first place rather then thoose who reach adulthood only having a small expected lifespan.

The problem is the person involved is held as being a moral exemplar in the here and now and to be held forever more by adherents of the religion he started.

A person whose acts and words are to be emulated by the faithful.

A person who was a warmonger, a person in charge of genocide and (sex) slavery, a polygamist and a person who married children.
 
Last edited:
Caracus2k said:
My (our) minds need to be 'in the gutter'?

I (we) are commenting on a historically documented assertion that male, in his 50's, did indeed marry a six year old and consummate that marriage when she was nine.

As can be established it was not a particularly uncommon instance, at the time, and not one that would have been limited to the Arabian peninsula either.

The problem is the person involved is held as being a moral exemplar in the here and now and to be held forever more by adherents of the religion he started.

A person whose acts and words are to be emulated by the faithful.

A person who was a warmonger, a person in charge of genocide, a polygamist and a person who married children.
Click to expand...

That baggage is yours (theirs?) along with anyone happy to argue it with you.

I was talking about the ruling the thread is about.

As given here: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"itemid":["002-12171"]}

Hotwired said:
Advertising an educational seminar on religion then taking the **** punished with a 480 euro fine.

As I understand it if it was not deceptively advertised as objective, in other words, advertised as an anti-islam seminar it would have been ok.

You also don't want to be slandering people in the present with a values judgement thrown over 1000 years into the past. Life expectancy used to average 30 years.

Perfectly fine to accuse people in the present of breaking modern rules of course. You know exactly what the law is.
Click to expand...

So if you no longer need assistance in understanding my original post we have nothing to talk about.
 
Shouldn't tedious threads like this be in Speakers Corner ?

It just a few people who give a toss / want to discuss it.

Hardly General Discussion material
 
Muhammed was held to be a prophet, as was Jesus in the two other Abrahamic religions. Only Christianity held that Jesus was the son of God, I understand.
 
AH I see, well, as a human being with my own views and opinions just like the flat-earthers and non-moon landing societies. I don't believe that they did.

Load of made up tosh in my view. carry on
 
Diagro said:
AH I see, well, as a human being with my own views and opinions just like the flat-earthers and non-moon landing societies. I don't believe that they did.

Load of made up tosh in my view. carry on
Click to expand...

Seems reasonable. Ask for evidence of existence, get evidence, ignore evidence, say what you wanted to say anyway.

There is a difference between a man called Jesus and the religious stories about Jesus. Some historical sources simply denounce him.
 
It's rulings such as these that will be the downfall of European nations once the Muslim population reaches a high enough % for these kind of things to be constantly enforced. Witnessing the downfall as it happens.
 
Hotwired said:
Seems reasonable. Ask for evidence of existence, get evidence, ignore evidence, say what you wanted to say anyway.

There is a difference between a man called Jesus and the religious stories about Jesus. Some historical sources simply denounce him.
Click to expand...

Mocks flat earthers; a group renowned for ignoring scientific evidence...then does exactly the same. He's brilliant isn't he? :D
 
Lord-Jaffa said:
It's rulings such as these that will be the downfall of European nations once the Muslim population reaches a high enough % for these kind of things to be constantly enforced. Witnessing the downfall as it happens.
Click to expand...

Likely Germany first, the birth rate of migrants has overtaken german natives, something like every 5th person comes from an immigration background. That said, a total change in face, will still take 100's of years.
 
Nasher said:
I don't see why the courts should even be wasting time with fairy tales.
Click to expand...

The worrying thing in this judgement is that they are not.
The worrying thing is that they are classing an individual who has been dead for over a thousand years as a 'person in political life.'
This was my misunderstanding within the initial OP.
I don't see how someone who is dead for such a period can have protected political views.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom