Skip to comments.Calling Mohammed a Pedophile Not Covered by Free Speech, European Court Rules
Posted on 10/26/2018 4:29:52 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
(CNSNews.com) Europes top human rights court has ruled that comments about Mohammed having pedophilic tendencies are not covered by the right to freedom of expression, agreeing with the assessment of courts in Austria that the remarks constituted an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam which could stir up prejudice and threaten religious peace.
A seven-judge European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) panel in Strasbourg concluded that the Austrian courts had carefully balanced the applicants 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.
Thursdays decision came nine years after Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, an Austrian political scientist and activist, held a seminar in Vienna where among things she criticized the treatment of women in Islam. The topic of Mohammeds marriage to Aisha, the youngest of his dozen wives and concubines, came up.
According to Islamic texts, the 7th century Arabian who founded Islam was betrothed to Aisha when she was six, and the marriage was consummated when she was nine.
The court record quotes Sabaditsch-Wolff as having said that Mohammed liked to do it with children, (other translations of the German comment render it had a thing for little girls) and saying, A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? What do we call it, if it is not pedophilia?
In 2011, Sabaditsch-Wolff was convicted under Austrias penal code for denigrating the teachings of a legally recognized religion and fined 480 euros (about $546), plus costs. She was acquitted on a charge of incitement.
Sabaditsch-Wolff appealed the decision, but a higher court in Austria upheld it.
In June 2012 the case was lodged with the ECHR, which hears allegations of breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights. Sabaditsch-Wolff complained her freedom of expression rights under the convention had been violated.
She said the Austrian courts had failed to address the substance of the statements in question, in the light of her right to freedom of expression.
If they had done so, Sabaditsch-Wolff argued, they would have qualified that as value judgments based on facts, rather than as mere value judgments.
The ECHR judges disagreed.
They said although people must tolerate the denial by others of their religious beliefs, in cases where comments are likely to incite religious intolerance a state might legitimately consider them to be incompatible with respect for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion and take proportionate restrictive measures.
The judges also said the subject matter was of a particularly sensitive nature, and that the authorities in Austria were in a better position to evaluate which statements were likely to disturb the religious peace in their country.
Fine, don’t call that murderius brigand a pedophile - just mention that he screwed a 9-year-old girl, and ask what we would call such a person today? Let the offended arsehole utter the verboten word. They want to play stupid word games, let them - there are easy ways around that.
We are scared that ruling that free speech means free speech will mean things start blowing up.
Also - we really should have thought more about bringing in thousands of them.
-—Every atheist in the EU then is guilty of this law like Richard Dawkins.-—
Right. I’m a religious critic, and I certainly am aware that Dawkins, Sam Harris and others slam Islam on a regular basis.
Nobody’s “feelings” should be protected from critical or abusive speech by any government. That’s the road to authoritarianism.
Anyone still think the EU is a good idea? It’s fascistic, slippery-slope, globalist insanity.
This is why we created America, though the liberal idiots don’t understand that. I’d say being told what “isn’t covered” by free speech is worth a revolution.
There were seven fools is black robes and powdered wigs
SIR! To be fair he didn’t boink her until she was 9!
‘It is a declaration that Islam it too brittle—too fragile—to withstand insults.’
very similar to American females...
an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam which could stir up prejudice and threaten religious peace.
In other words, they don’t want to get the Haji’s all riled up and upset the status quo.
How about lying homicidal baby raper?
Screw that panel, and the pedophile Mooohammed.
So, calling a turd a turd, and a thief a thief, and a pig a pig is okay; but calling a pedophile a pedophile is illegal?
This is the final nail in the take over of Europe.
That was my first question too.
Afraid you missed my point - Islam is anything but peaceful - so saying something ‘deemed’ capable of threatening religions peace of Islam is the height of irony
You know who rules you. It is those who you are forbidden to criticize.
Europe has decided that Mohammed is the boss.
So this means, for muslims, that pedophilia and killing unbelievers are protected religious acts.
Expect more terrorism.
MOHAMMAD IS A PEDOPHILE!
MOHAMMED IS A PEDOPHILE!
MOHAMMED IS A PEDOPHILE!
MOHAMMED IS A PEDOPHILE!
Come get me you pansy Euro-Weenies! I dare you!
Islam is a war plan
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.