Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What about Defaming God?
#1
Would Defaming God be covered under Free Speech or not?

Quote:Defaming Muhammad does not fall under purview of free speech, European court rules
 
OK, I don't know, is there a Double Standard about God or Muhammad and Free Speech?
Quote:The freedom of speech does not extend to include defaming the prophet of Islam, the European Court of Human rights ruled Thursday.


The Strasbourg-based ECHR ruled that insulting Islamic prophet Muhammad “goes beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate” and “could stir up prejudice and put at risk religious peace.”


The court’s decision comes after it rejected an Austrian woman’s claim that her previous conviction for calling Muhammad a pedophile, due to his marriage to a 6-year-old girl, violated her freedom of speech.


The ECHR ruled Austrian courts had “carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected.”


The woman, in her late 40s and identified only as E.S., claimed during two public seminars in 2009 that Muhammad’s marriage to a young girl was akin to “pedophilia.”


According to Islamic tradition, the marriage between Muhammad and a 6-year-old girl was consummated when she was 9 years old and he was about 50.


The Austrian woman stated in her seminars that Muhammad “liked to do it with children” and “… A 56-year-old and a 6-year-old? … What do we call it, if it is not pedophilia?”
Source
Face the Facts,,,, Muhammad was a Pedophile,,,, just a dirty nasty old man.
Once A Rogue, Always A Rogue!
[Image: attachment.php?aid=936]
#2
Quote:Face the Facts,,,, Muhammad was a Pedophile,,,, just a dirty nasty old man.

I approve of this message.   minusculebeercheers
#3
Press Release From the EHCR, basically saying that it's okay to state facts regarding the Islamic prophet,
just not saying it in an insulting context. This is why the citizens of The Republic of Ireland (26th Oct) voted
to drop the 'Blasphemy Law' on whether their nation can speak sacrilegiously about “God or sacred things”
without legal consequences.

Anyone see what's happened...? Three western religions all approached at the same time, only one involved bullets.

Quote:issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 360 (2018) 25.10.2018
Conviction for calling Muhammad a paedophile is not in breach of Article 10
In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of E.S. v. Austria (application no. 38450/12) the European Court of
Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case concerned the applicant’s conviction for disparaging religious doctrines; she had made statements
suggesting that Muhammad had had paedophilic tendencies.

The Court found in particular that the domestic courts comprehensively assessed the wider context of the applicant’s
statements and carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious
feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria.

 It held that by considering the impugned statements as going beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate,
and by classifying them as an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam which could stir up prejudice and threaten
religious peace, the domestic courts put forward relevant and sufficient reasons.

Principal facts The applicant, E.S., is an Austrian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Vienna (Austria).
In October and November 2009, Mrs S. held two seminars entitled “Basic Information on Islam”, in which she discussed
the marriage between the Prophet Muhammad and a six-year old girl, Aisha, which allegedly was consummated when
she was nine.

Inter alia, the applicant stated that Muhammad “liked to do it with children” and “... A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? ...
What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?”.

On 15 February 2011 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court found that these statements implied that Muhammad had had
paedophilic tendencies, and convicted Mrs S. for disparaging religious doctrines. She was ordered to pay a fine of 480
euros and the costs of the proceedings.

Mrs S. appealed but the Vienna Court of Appeal upheld the decision in December 2011, confirming in essence the lower
court’s findings. A request for the renewal of the proceedings was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 11 December 2013.
   
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Mrs S. complained that
the domestic courts failed to address the substance of the impugned statements in the light of her right to freedom of expression.
If they had done so, they would not have qualified them as mere value judgments but as value judgments based on facts.

Furthermore, her criticism of Islam occurred in the framework of an objective and lively discussion which contributed to a public
debate, and had not been aimed at:

1.  Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final.
During the three-month period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber
of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination.

In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber
judgment will become final on that day. Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the
Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.

2
defaming the Prophet of Islam.
Lastly, Mrs S. submitted that religious groups had to tolerate even severe criticism.
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 6 June 2012. Judgment was given by a Chamber
of seven judges, composed as follows: Angelika Nußberger (Germany), President, André Potocki (France), Síofra O’Leary
(Ireland), Mārtiņš Mits (Latvia), Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer (Austria), Lәtif Hüseynov (Azerbaijan), Lado Chanturia (Georgia),
and also Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar.

Decision of the Court Article 10 The Court noted that those who choose to exercise the freedom to manifest their religion under
Article 9 of the Convention could not expect to be exempt from criticism.
They must tolerate and accept the denial by others of their religious beliefs.

Only where expressions under Article 10 went beyond the limits of a critical denial, and certainly where they were likely to incite
religious intolerance, might a State legitimately consider them to be incompatible with respect for the freedom of thought,
conscience and religion and take proportionate restrictive measures.

The Court observed also that the subject matter of the instant case was of a particularly sensitive nature, and that the (potential)
effects of the impugned statements, to a certain degree, depended on the situation in the respective country where the statements
were made, at the time and in the context they were made.

Accordingly, it considered that the domestic authorities had a wide margin of appreciation in the instant case, as they were in a
better position to evaluate which statements were likely to disturb the religious peace in their country.
The Court reiterated that it has distinguished in its case-law between statements of fact and value judgments.

It emphasised that the truth of value judgments was not susceptible to proof. However, a value judgment without any factual basis
to support it might be excessive. The Court noted that the domestic courts comprehensively explained why they considered that
the applicant’s statements had been capable of arousing justified indignation; specifically, they had not been made in an objective
manner contributing to a debate of public interest (e.g. on child marriage), but could only be understood as having been aimed at
demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship.

It agreed with the domestic courts that Mrs S. must have been aware that her statements were partly based on untrue facts and apt
to arouse indignation in others. The national courts found that Mrs S. had subjectively labelled Muhammad with paedophilia as his
general sexual preference, and that she failed to neutrally inform her audience of the historical background, which consequently did
not allow for a serious debate on that issue.

Hence, the Court saw no reason to depart from the domestic courts’ qualification of the impugned statements as value judgments
which they had based on a detailed analysis of the statements made. The Court found in conclusion that in the instant case the
domestic courts carefully balanced the applicant’s right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious
feelings protected, and to have religious peace preserved in Austrian society.

3
The Court held further that even in a lively discussion it was not compatible with Article 10 of the Convention to pack incriminating
statements into the wrapping of an otherwise acceptable expression of opinion and claim that this rendered passable those statements
exceeding the permissible limits of freedom of expression.

Lastly, since Mrs S. was ordered to pay a moderate fine and that fine was on the lower end of the statutory range of punishment,
the criminal sanction could not to be considered as disproportionate. Under these circumstances, and given the fact that Mrs S.
made several incriminating statements, the Court considered that the Austrian courts did not overstep their wide margin of
appreciation in the instant case when convicting Mrs S. of disparaging religious doctrines.

Overall, there had been no violation of Article 10.
The judgment is available only in English.
This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information
about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int.
To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter @ECHRpress.
Press contacts echrpress@echr.coe.int | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08 Somi Nikol (tel: + 33 3 90 21 64 25)
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09) Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)
Patrick Lannin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 44 18)

The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with
alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.
ECHR: (First link under column marked 'Chamber')
Edith Head Gives Good Wardrobe. 
#4
Ok this is how it was explained to me by a muslim.
He took the child when she was 4 years old so no one else could harm her, he waited till she had her first period, then has sex with her as she was no longer a child and could be made pregnant, so she was a woman.

Now everyone must understand that all muslim men want and need to be like mohamed, like it or not its the reason why so many muslim men rape children all over Europe and why the law has turned a blind eye to it, its seen as there religious right.
#5
(10-28-2018, 06:19 PM)Wallfire Wrote: Ok this is how it was explained to me by a muslim.
He took the child when she was 4 years old so no one else could harm her, he waited till she had her first period, then has sex with her as she was no longer a child and could be made pregnant, so she was a woman.

Now everyone must understand that all muslim men want and need to be like mohamed, like it or not its the reason why so many muslim men rape children all over Europe and why the law has turned a blind eye to it, its seen as there religious right.
That is still Pediphillia, many young girls start their period age 9 to 11 ans still don't have Pubic Hair.
Even using the excuse they waited, It's still sick! 

I assume, Devout Muslim Men no longer are Excited By the Wives once they grow Pubic Hairs and larger Breast!!??
Once A Rogue, Always A Rogue!
[Image: attachment.php?aid=936]
#6
I dont see islam as a religion, but as an oppressive sick cult, that has a lot in common with the other big oppressive cult, the RC church.
#7
(10-27-2018, 10:33 PM)guohua Wrote: Face the Facts,,,, Muhammad was a Pedophile,,,, just a dirty nasty old man.

Mohammed was the sort of guy that gives dirty nasty old men a bad name.


.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.

Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’


#8
(10-28-2018, 06:19 PM)Wallfire Wrote: Ok this is how it was explained to me by a muslim.
He took the child when she was 4 years old so no one else could harm her, he waited till she had her first period, then has sex with her as she was no longer a child and could be made pregnant, so she was a woman.

Now everyone must understand that all muslim men want and need to be like mohamed, like it or not its the reason why so many muslim men rape children all over Europe and why the law has turned a blind eye to it, its seen as there religious right.

That Muslim was trying to blow smoke up your ass.

The little girl in question was Aisha, and she was the daughter of Abu Bakr, one of Mohammed's closest companions. If Abu Bakr couldn't defend her, Mohammed was already close enough to the family to do so, without defiling her.

Nope, he was just a kiddie-diddler. Some say that urge came from his own sexual abuse at the hands of an uncle, when he was just a child himself.

Muslims also have a "religious right" to "kill infidels wherever they may be found". I note that, in moving into Europe, they may be able to find several "infidels" in need of killing in Islamic eyes. What will the court do when they start exercising that "religious right" as well?

They did the same thing the last time they invaded Europe in the 8th century. Found so many infidels to kill that they kept pushing forward to find more. Karl Martel, AKA "Charles the Hammer" had something to say about that at Tours, in France, and the message was received loud and clear.

What message will Europe deliver this time? There seems to be a slow start...

.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.

Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’


#9
(10-28-2018, 06:36 PM)guohua Wrote:
(10-28-2018, 06:19 PM)Wallfire Wrote: Ok this is how it was explained to me by a muslim.
He took the child when she was 4 years old so no one else could harm her, he waited till she had her first period, then has sex with her as she was no longer a child and could be made pregnant, so she was a woman.

Now everyone must understand that all muslim men want and need to be like mohamed, like it or not its the reason why so many muslim men rape children all over Europe and why the law has turned a blind eye to it, its seen as there religious right.
That is still Pediphillia, many young girls start their period age 9 to 11 ans still don't have Pubic Hair.
Even using the excuse they waited, It's still sick! 

I assume, Devout Muslim Men no longer are Excited By the Wives once they grow Pubic Hairs and larger Breast!!??

Most muslims shave their pubic hair in observance of Islamic law. Yes, it's Islamic law to shave the pubes, and make the person more child-like in appearance.

How's that for draconian law, regulating even the most intimate thing?

.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.

Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’


#10
(10-29-2018, 05:48 PM)Ninurta Wrote:
(10-28-2018, 06:36 PM)guohua Wrote:
(10-28-2018, 06:19 PM)Wallfire Wrote: Ok this is how it was explained to me by a muslim.
He took the child when she was 4 years old so no one else could harm her, he waited till she had her first period, then has sex with her as she was no longer a child and could be made pregnant, so she was a woman.

Now everyone must understand that all muslim men want and need to be like mohamed, like it or not its the reason why so many muslim men rape children all over Europe and why the law has turned a blind eye to it, its seen as there religious right.
That is still Pediphillia, many young girls start their period age 9 to 11 ans still don't have Pubic Hair.
Even using the excuse they waited, It's still sick! 

I assume, Devout Muslim Men no longer are Excited By the Wives once they grow Pubic Hairs and larger Breast!!??

Most muslims shave their pubic hair in observance of Islamic law. Yes, it's Islamic law to shave the pubes, and make the person more child-like in appearance.

How's that for draconian law, regulating even the most intimate thing?

.
What does God have to do with your Pubic Hairs,,,,,, "Oh" he was a Pediphile.
Once A Rogue, Always A Rogue!
[Image: attachment.php?aid=936]
#11
(10-29-2018, 05:53 PM)guohua Wrote: Ninurta
Most muslims shave their pubic hair in observance of Islamic law. Yes, it's Islamic law to shave the pubes, and make the person more child-like in appearance.

How's that for draconian law, regulating even the most intimate thing?

.
What does God have to do with your Pubic Hairs,,,,,, "Oh" he was a Pediphile.

It's got nothing to do with either God or Allah - Islamic law was formulated entirely by humans. In this case, they claim it is for "religious cleanliness", but I strongly suspect they just want their big girls to look more like little girls - every man his own Aisha! Or four...

Islamic sexual laws are bizarre... and detailed, too!
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.

Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’




Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)