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

Dis86 said:
Mocks flat earthers; a group renowned for ignoring scientific evidence...then does exactly the same. He's brilliant isn't he? :D
Click to expand...
And there is scientific evidence that Jesus existed and did all the nonsense that he is claimed to have done? No there is NOT.

I am brilliant, thanks for noticing.
 
IronWarrior said:
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.
Click to expand...

However there will be pockets if concentrations like we have now in Bradford for example or Birmingham where the %s are skewed from the national averages.
 
Diagro said:
And there is scientific evidence that Jesus existed and did all the nonsense that he is claimed to have done? No there is NOT.

I am brilliant, thanks for noticing.
Click to expand...

That's not what you said. You said he didn't exist. You are wrong. You were shown to be wrong. You then said you don't care what the evidence says.
Just like those morons who believe in a flat earth.
 
Maybe the "problem" is it was put across as a statement. What they should have said was that they BELIEVE Muhammad was a peado, then it's simply your own beliefs and that can't be challenged :P
 
Nasher said:
Maybe the "problem" is it was put across as a statement. What they should have said was that they BELIEVE Muhammad was a peado, then it's simply your own beliefs and that can't be challenged :p
Click to expand...

The problem was advertising it as objective seminars on islam. If they had advertised it honestly as anti-islam they would have been fine.

It was a balance between rights of people to be religious in peace and the rights to criticise religion. The ruling was that they chose to be critical with the deception of being impartial.

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

It's been posted on page one for everyone to read.
 
Destination said:
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?
Click to expand...

Perhaps read this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage

Ruth Lamdan writes: “The numerous references to child marriage in the 16th- century Responsa literature and other sources, shows that child marriage was so common, it was virtually the norm. In this context, it is important to remember that in halakha, the term ‘minor’ refers to a girl under twelve years and a day. A girl aged twelve and a half was already considered an adult in all respects.”[28]
Click to expand...


Today, child marriage is still fairly widespread, particularly in developing countries, such as parts of Africa,[10][11] South Asia,[12] Southeast Asia,[13][14] West Asia,[15][16]Latin America,[15] and Oceania.[17] However, even in developed countries such as the United States legal exceptions mean that 25 US states have no minimum age requirement.
Click to expand...


And: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent

. English common law had traditionally set the age of consent within the range of ten to twelve years old, but the Offences Against the Person Act 1875 raised this to thirteen in Great Britain and Ireland.
Click to expand...
 
sigma said:
Perhaps read this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage

And: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent
Click to expand...

In most societies, for most of all time.

The rule has always been

"Old enough to Bleed, Old enough to Breed"

"Child Marriage" was not uncommon in England at that time, though the general rule was that said marriage should not be consummated until the above criteria were met. :p

Having said that, it is also the case that the concept of "Childhood" is really a very recent one. For the most part, once people were no longer infants they really were regarded as young adults, with all the pros and cons that went with that!
 
Dis86 said:
That's not what you said. You said he didn't exist. You are wrong. You were shown to be wrong. You then said you don't care what the evidence says.
Just like those morons who believe in a flat earth.
Click to expand...
I was shown to be wrong? By who and with what?
So, there was a man called Jesus who lived a long time ago? Nice to know. I know a chap called Jesus who is alive today.

What I don't believe is the nonsense he did that they try and sell to us as fact. THAT Jesus didn't exist. Hence I'm not wrong.

Now, unless you can provide proof that he did do the nonsensical things that people claim, stop replying to my posts.
 
...

Diagro said:
So, is Muhammed like Jesus? .. made up person from a book?
Click to expand...
Destination said:
No both existed.
Click to expand...
Diagro said:
They did? You sure?
Got any proof?

:/
Click to expand...
Whitewater said:
This article goes a little into the existence of Jesus, sorry for the mainstream media source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...cal-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died.
Click to expand...
Hotwired said:
Doesn't mean their life stories were not embellished but yes.
Click to expand...

...

Diagro said:
I was shown to be wrong? By who and with what?
So, there was a man called Jesus who lived a long time ago? Nice to know. I know a chap called Jesus who is alive today.

What I don't believe is the nonsense he did that they try and sell to us as fact. THAT Jesus didn't exist. Hence I'm not wrong.

Now, unless you can provide proof that he did do the nonsensical things that people claim, stop replying to my posts.
Click to expand...

See, if you move the goalposts you can't ever be wrong.
 
Whitewater said:
This article goes a little into the existence of Jesus, sorry for the mainstream media source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...cal-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died.
Click to expand...

Hilliarous that this article is sourced as 'proof' for the existence of Jesus...

For clarity I don't think there wasn't a 1st mesianic individual who actually existed and who forms the basis for the character 'Jesus' I obviously don't believe any of the supernatural stuff and suspect that the character is at least in part a composite of more than one person.

But really the evidence for Jesus is some people writing about him 25 or so years after his death with the first sources outside of the religion writing about him 50+ year after his death? Nobody thought to write about him when he was alive (or at least shortly his death) when he was apparently performing all sorts of miracles?

scholars agree that the earliest of these letters were written within 25 years of Jesus’s death at the very latest, while the detailed biographical accounts of Jesus in the New Testament gospels date from around 40 years after he died.
Click to expand...


What did non-Christian authors say about Jesus?
As far as we know, the first author outside the church to mention Jesus is the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who wrote a history of Judaism around AD93.
Click to expand...
 
No one in here has offered any support for the legitimacy of the magic tricks attributed to the man called Jesus so it sounds pretty meaningless to rant about those.
 
Caracus2k said:
Hilliarous that this article is sourced as 'proof' for the existence of Jesus...

For clarity I don't think there wasn't a 1st mesianic individual who actually existed and who forms the basis for the character 'Jesus' I obviously don't believe any of the supernatural stuff and suspect that the character is at least in part a composite of more than one person.

But really the evidence for Jesus is some people writing about him 25 or so years after his death with the first sources outside of the religion writing about him 50+ year after his death? Nobody thought to write about him when he was alive (or at least shortly his death) when he was apparently performing all sorts of miracles?
Click to expand...

No. They're the earliest sources we have. You can surely appreciate that after 2000 years some evidence might have been lost...
And again you're missing the point. Nobody is stating he performed miracles. Just that he was a man.
 
ECHR being good for nothing as usual.

One of the founding principles upon which freedom of expression was founded was so that religious ideas and beliefs could be questioned. The ECHR have flagrantly disregarded civil liberties once again, much like the nazi judges that were so ironically sentenced at Nuremberg.
 
Last edited:
here's a fact - there's islamophobia in the tories - but no headlines nothing... but with antisemitism, it was all in the papers.. everyone was being forced to apologise do xyz...
 
Dis86 said:
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.
Click to expand...
so by the same fashion, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent#/media/File:Age_of_Consent_-_Global.svg in the west, (france = 13, Japan = 12). i dont see anyone raising an objection to that.. but you have a problem with something that happened 1500 years ago when the father of the bride/relatives, the non-muslims.. no one raised any objections.. perhaps it was the custom of the time.. but dont let facts get in the way..

here's another fact - when people are usually paedophiles, they dont stop at one girl.. they have lots.. He had ONE..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom