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

[enkoda]

It's as if there's a magnet diverting the posts away from the actual ruling.

It's only been posted a few times but the number of references to the ACTUAL RULING and not some junk you've made up in your head are miserable.

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

First seen on page 1, or ignored on page 1 as it may be.

Firstly, what part of Austria's Article 188 of the Criminal Code has any relevance to people and events 1400 years ago in another country?

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.

Secondly, how has this court proven that Muhammad didn't like sex with young girls - how have they ruled that out despite accounts confirming he consummated the marriage when Aisha was around 9 years old. If we are applying the laws of today to back then (just like this court has done), a minor cannot legally give consent, so we won't let things like statutory rape have any bearing on this.

 

[Hotwired]

Er, guys, forget the stuff about Islam, there's a much bigger elephant in the ECHR statement.

The ECHR just said in writing that having sex with a 6 year old doesn't make you a paedophile if you stay together until she's 18... O.o

Alright lets put the asbestos suit on and pick up the toxic waste as preferable to seeing people showing they didn't understand the ruling.

Here is the link to the actual ruling: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"itemid":["002-12171"]}

Now what is getting people excited.

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.

E.S. made a public claim of paedophilia against someone 1400 years in the past.

What is paedophilia?

Paedophilia is a primary sexual desire for pre-pubescent children and despite common belief this is not a crime but a mental condition.

This is very often confused with sexual abuse which depends on the laws of the time and place.

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

1) [didn't] provid[e] evidence that his primary sexual interest in Aisha had been her not yet having reached puberty
2) [didn't provide evidence] that his other wives or concubines had been similarly young
3) 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.

(1) unable to prove that Muhammad wanted sex with Aisha because she was underage
(2) unable to provide wider evidence of sexual interest in children from his other partners.
(3) refers to continued partnership with Aisha past pre-pubescent age

So what's the problem?

The onus is on E.S. as the accuser to provide the evidence the person in question had the mental condition of paedophilia.

In other words, to some peoples surprise, it is hard to claim a mental condition to a legal standard 1400 years into the past.

Firstly, what part of Austria's Article 188 of the Criminal Code has any relevance to people and events 1400 years ago in another country?

Secondly, how has this court proven that Muhammad didn't like sex with young girls - how have they ruled that out despite accounts confirming he consummated the marriage when Aisha was around 9 years old. If we are applying the laws of today to back then (just like this court has done), a minor cannot legally give consent, so we won't let things like statutory rape have any bearing on this.

You make an accusation which affects people in the present, you get held to the laws of the present time.

In this instance E.S. is (1) running against peoples rights to be religious in peace by (2) making an accusation of paedophilia which is a modern slur on followers of that religion.

So E.S. goes to court.

If she can prove to a legal standard that she is correct then she is being objective and not inciting religious unrest.

If she cannot then she is a liar and is guilty of breaching peoples rights to be religious in peace.

Read the above to understand how the judgement went.

 

[D.P.]

While child marriage was the "normal" 100's or 1000's years ago, especially with royal families, the thing is, that isn't the problem in my view.

The problem is that islam and muslims view mohammed as some role model to look up too, after all, he is their "prophet", when he practised these values.

That's the problem.

Go find a new role model.

Well, out of the 1.8 billion Muslims in the world, approximately 1.8 billion also don't believe pedophilia is acceptable today, just as Christian don;t believe Slavery or stoning women adultrices to death is acceptable.

 

[Dis86]

Well, out of the 1.8 billion Muslims in the world, approximately 1.8 billion also don't believe pedophilia is acceptable today, just as Christian don;t believe Slavery or stoning women adultrices to death is acceptable.

Yeah I don't think your figures are at all correct.

 

[Energize]

child marriage was a norm of the society and of the time. you cant apply todays societal norms to 1500 years ago, dont be pathetic. but dont let common sense get in the way of your hate.

This is an irrational way of thinking termed "moral relativism".

There are basic moral standards of humanity that apply to all civilisations at all points in time. Not marrying or molesting children is one of them.

 

[IronWarrior]

Well, out of the 1.8 billion Muslims in the world, approximately 1.8 billion also don't believe pedophilia is acceptable today, just as Christian don;t believe Slavery or stoning women adultrices to death is acceptable.

While I understand the point you making and that you pulled these numbers out of thin air, it seems largely islamic countries do enjoy stoning women to death, giving the death penalty for adultery, also going to add homosexuality, atheism, blasphemy and witchcraft to the list of things that they will kill you for.

While Christian countries have stopped all of this.

That said, it doesn't change the fact that muslims today, still think Mohammed is an awesome guy and use him as a role model and prophet while the historical fact that he did some really... really bad things like consummate his marriage to Aisha at the age of 9.

While, that was acceptable back in 678, should this man, be respected today?

 

[ubersonic]

Er, guys, forget the stuff about Islam, there's a much bigger elephant in the ECHR statement.

The ECHR just said in writing that having sex with a 6 year old doesn't make you a paedophile if you stay together until she's 18... O.o

Q: Does having sex with a child make somebody a pedophile?
A: Yes.

You (and the ECHR) can shift goalposts and run semantics all day but it doesn't change the facts, and trying to twist facts and create loopholes to excuse it and pacify religious minorities is just silly and only results in excusing modern day pedophiles.

 

[Hotwired]

Q: Does having sex with a child make somebody a pedophile?
A: Yes.

You (and the ECHR) can shift goalposts and run semantics all day but it doesn't change the facts, and trying to twist facts and create loopholes to excuse it and pacify religious minorities is just silly and only results in excusing modern day pedophiles.

When I explain why the rulings is what it is and you say you don't care... great argument.

 

[dowie]

When I explain why the rulings is what it is and you say you don't care... great argument.

He's not obliged to agree with the ruling or indeed the principles laid down by the Council of Europe with regards to blasphemy laws, it seems pretty silly tbh...

 

[Hotwired]

He's not obliged to agree with the ruling or indeed the principles laid down by the Council of Europe with regards to blasphemy laws, it seems pretty silly tbh...

I didn't say he was.

He left the door open to be called obnoxiously ignorant by replying to say he didn't care as long as it didn't match what he thinks.

 

[Caracus2k]

What is paedophilia?

Paedophilia is a primary sexual desire for pre-pubescent children and despite common belief this is not a crime but a mental condition.

This is very often confused with sexual abuse which depends on the laws of the time and place.

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

1) [didn't] provid[e] evidence that his primary sexual interest in Aisha had been her not yet having reached puberty
2) [didn't provide evidence] that his other wives or concubines had been similarly young
3) 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.

(1) unable to prove that Muhammad wanted sex with Aisha because she was underage
(2) unable to provide wider evidence of sexual interest in children from his other partners.
(3) refers to continued partnership with Aisha past pre-pubescent age

You like the court are in error because you are using one very particular defintion of the world that is used in a medical/ psychotherapy setting.

Here's another defintion of the word and one far more applicable to the way the word is typically used.

paedophile
/ˈpiːdə(ʊ)fʌɪl/
noun
noun: paedophile; plural noun: paedophiles; noun: pedophile; plural noun: pedophiles

1. a person who is sexually attracted to children

I'll refer to my previous point do you seriously imagine the court would defend the right of a currently living individual not to be labelled a paedophile on the basis that they didn't only **** children or kept on ****ing a child past the age of consent?

 

[enkoda]

Alright lets put the asbestos suit on and pick up the toxic waste as preferable to seeing people showing they didn't understand the ruling.

Here is the link to the actual ruling: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"itemid":["002-12171"]}

Now what is getting people excited.



E.S. made a public claim of paedophilia against someone 1400 years in the past.

What is paedophilia?

Paedophilia is a primary sexual desire for pre-pubescent children and despite common belief this is not a crime but a mental condition.

This is very often confused with sexual abuse which depends on the laws of the time and place.

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

1) [didn't] provid[e] evidence that his primary sexual interest in Aisha had been her not yet having reached puberty
2) [didn't provide evidence] that his other wives or concubines had been similarly young
3) 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.

(1) unable to prove that Muhammad wanted sex with Aisha because she was underage
(2) unable to provide wider evidence of sexual interest in children from his other partners.
(3) refers to continued partnership with Aisha past pre-pubescent age

So what's the problem?

The onus is on E.S. as the accuser to provide the evidence the person in question had the mental condition of paedophilia.

In other words, to some peoples surprise, it is hard to claim a mental condition to a legal standard 1400 years into the past.



You make an accusation which affects people in the present, you get held to the laws of the present time.

In this instance E.S. is (1) running against peoples rights to be religious in peace by (2) making an accusation of paedophilia which is a modern slur on followers of that religion.

So E.S. goes to court.

If she can prove to a legal standard that she is correct then she is being objective and not inciting religious unrest.

If she cannot then she is a liar and is guilty of breaching peoples rights to be religious in peace.

Read the above to understand how the judgement went.

Lots to address there so i might edit this later, but for starters:

Obviously we can't determine if Mohammad had a mental disorder such as paedophilia, but seeing as the court has assumed Islamic literature is a factual representation of his life, he still had sex with a child.

However, according to the ruling, the idea that paedophilia can only be identified if there is evidence of the other wives/partners being underage too is beyond ludicrous, or that paedophilia is automatically dismissed because the victim remains married to their abuser - seriously, I'm at a loss to understand the logic there.

Where the crux of this whole issue lies is with the records themselves. I'm pretty sure both the Quran and the hadiths document a winged horse carrying Mohammad up to heaven, the Moon being sliced in half, the Sun setting in a pool of muddy water, a global flood, etc - you would have to be extraordinarily naive or indoctrinated into the religion to believe these things actually happened, but this is what Islamic scripture preaches as the truth.

There is no reasonable, rational basis to believe any of these things (plus a multitude of others), nor is there any scientific or reliable sources of evidence backing up these claims, so it would be dangerous to assume any other passages are truthful either, no matter how mundane or normal they appear to be.

A book littered with passages that are demonstrably not the word of God but asserted as being so cannot be relied upon to tell us anything truthful. Assuming all the accounts of Mohammad's life as factual without determining if they actually are is a seriously flawed position to take and should never have been applied in a court of law.

On that basis the correct decision should have been "this isn't for us to make a judgement on, case dismissed".

"In next week's edition of 'Whacky Court Rulings' a woman is imprisoned for calling Delores Umbridge a child abuser for torturing a pupil. Tune in to watch the judges scour through the Harry Potter books to assess the Ministry of Magic's claim that because Harry remained a pupil at Hogwarts she can't be a torturer, while the Benny Hill theme tune plays in the background."

Edit: wall of text split up

 

[Hotwired]

You like the court are in error because you are using one very particular defintion of the world that is used in a medical/ psychotherapy setting.

Here's another defintion of the word and one far more applicable to the way the word is typically used.

paedophile
/ˈpiːdə(ʊ)fʌɪl/
noun
noun: paedophile; plural noun: paedophiles; noun: pedophile; plural noun: pedophiles

1. a person who is sexually attracted to children

You are saying a court is wrong to use the correct definition of a word? That is a horrible argument and you should never use it.

I'm pretty sure you're running into this highlighted bit:

This is very often confused with sexual abuse which depends on the laws of the time and place.

Paedophilia is a mental condition and is not a criminal offence. Technically you can get medical help however the stigma is so massive your life would be destroyed if anyone leaked that information.

Child sexual abuse is a crime however not all people who sexually abuse children are paedophiles and being a mental condition, being a paedophile does not mean you've sexually abused children.

So no, courts do not use the label of paedophile for every child sexual abuse case, the whole point is to be as correct as possible.

I'll refer to my previous point do you seriously imagine the court would defend the right of a currently living individual not to be labelled a paedophile on the basis that they didn't only **** children or kept on ****ing a child past the age of consent?

That is all illegal here and now. That is child sexual abuse and you will be done for the crime of child sexual abuse.

To be legally correct to call that person a paedophile it would have to have to be proven there is a mental condition of being attracted to children. As opposed to a blunt but quick example of not caring what age someone is. That would make you a broad spectrum sexual offender which isn't exactly an improvement.

But yes, you could theoretically have a case if something like a major paper used the term without it being a proven mental condition. Your name would be **** before and **** after and a double helping for the extra publicity but sure, theoretically you could challenge it.

However I am completely aware of the casual label of paedophile which is much more lazy but stuck on anyone connected to underage sexual activity. In the example given you would be helpless to prevent the casual label of paedophile being used on you.

I know a lot of people are gagging to get into the religious side which I don't care tuppence for but two things:

1. The historical case in question was not a sexual offence in that time and that place so there wasn't a crime. Therefore not an underage sexual criminal by the standards of that time.
2. The information available on this long dead person isn't enough to meet the criteria of the mental condition of paedophilia.

The casual claim at a public "religious seminar" mostly rides on trying to project modern rules and values into the past. Which is basically why when formally challenged it collapsed in a court where that isn't good enough.

Paedophilia is a very poisonous subject and virtually impossible to talk sensibly about without someone screaming abuse.

 

[Caracus2k]

You are saying a court is wrong to use the correct definition of a word? That is a horrible argument and you should never use it.

I'm saying that words can have different meanings in different contexts.

I'm fully aware that in a medical/clinical setting that paedophilia refers to the primary or exclusive sexual interest in pre pubescent individuals. But that's not how the word is used, in general, outside of that setting.

As the meeting in question doesn't appear to have been or purported to have been a seminar for people in the psychotherapy / medical field then its usage isn't incongruent I would suggest.

 

[The Running Man]

Thank God he set such a positive example

Rotherham grooming gang: seven men guilty of sexual offences

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...g-gang-seven-men-convicted-of-sexual-offences

www.theguardian.com

 

[ubersonic]

you say you don't care... great argument.

I didn't say I didn't care, I pointed out you were wrong to try and excuse/support paedophiles (even mythological ones), it's different.

You are saying a court is wrong to use the correct definition of a word?

No, people are saying that the court (and you) are wrong to twist the definition of a word to suit their argument just to try and be PC.

A person who has sex with children (especially six year olds) is a paedophile, it's that simple, it doesn't matter if they don't suffer from the mental condition paedophilia, it's not an actual prerequisite to being a paedophile, just like knowing they're underage isn't (hence the statutory part of statutory rape).

 

[ubersonic]

double post

 

[indup]

This is an irrational way of thinking termed "moral relativism".

There are basic moral standards of humanity that apply to all civilisations at all points in time. Not marrying or molesting children is one of them.

really? prove to me then 1 person of the prophets time muslim or non-muslim who objected to his marriage with our mother aaishah?

 

[Dis86]

really? prove to me then 1 person of the prophets time muslim or non-muslim who objected to his marriage with our mother aaishah?

Since he acted in accordance with the will of god and god is omnipresent and omnipotent then pretty much everyone now...

 

[Hotwired]

I'm saying that words can have different meanings in different contexts.

I'm fully aware that in a medical/clinical setting that paedophilia refers to the primary or exclusive sexual interest in pre pubescent individuals. But that's not how the word is used, in general, outside of that setting.

As the meeting in question doesn't appear to have been or purported to have been a seminar for people in the psychotherapy / medical field then its usage isn't incongruent I would suggest.

When pulled up in court the casual use of words is not acceptable.

If E.S. had specified, "had sex with a child" she would not have been wrong but she chose to use a label she was not capable of defending. Thus she lost.

I didn't say I didn't care, I pointed out you were wrong to try and excuse/support paedophiles (even mythological ones), it's different.

No, people are saying that the court (and you) are wrong to twist the definition of a word to suit their argument just to try and be PC.

A person who has sex with children (especially six year olds) is a paedophile, it's that simple, it doesn't matter if they don't suffer from the mental condition paedophilia, it's not an actual prerequisite to being a paedophile, just like knowing they're underage isn't (hence the statutory part of statutory rape).

Of course you said you didn't care. You blanked my large explanatory post and scribbled what you wanted to say.

The ruling is that E.S. did not have evidence to use a specific term, ignorance of the term is not an excuse when you end up in court. There would have been zero case if she had stuck to language she could defend such as "had sex with a child".

The huge irony that comes up every time you talk about twisting of definition is that you're holding up the twisted version.

You want the casual use of paedophile (which here and now is basically anything connected with child sexual abuse) to be accepted by a court just so you can say the label is correct. The facts are not disputed but you WANT that label to be official..

It officially isn't and that betrays you and others for not understanding the difference between what they said and what you had in your mind.


I note you're still managing to fit slurs in there because reasoned argument is hard. There is no defence here for child sexual abuse and no defence for even an ancient practice of marrying children. All about the ruling and how badly people are managing to read it.