This is clearly the case of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, who was fined and given a jail sentence for calling Muhammad a pedophile. He married a six-year-old and consummated the marriage when she was nine, but “the Austrian courts had held that ES was making value judgments partly based on untrue facts and without regard to the historical context.”
The problem that the Austrian courts overlooked here was that Muhammad is held up in Islam as the perfect example of conduct for Muslims (cf. Qur’an 33:21). Accordingly, his example does lead to pedophilia, and in any case the distinction between pedophilia and child marriage can be very fine. In Afghanistan virtually all girls above third-grade age are married, and because of Muhammad, but the Austrian court would have us believe either that there is no pedophilia in these child marriages, or that they have nothing to do with Muhammad, both of which could be proven false readily.
And as for “untrue facts,” the hadith collection that Muslims consider most reliable, Sahih Bukhari, affirms more than once that Aisha was nine at the time of the consummation of the marriage.
Finally, would the European Court of Human Rights rule that someone deserved a fine and imprisonment for criticizing Jesus? The case wouldn’t even come to them.
This is an important step toward the imposition of Sharia in Europe, as it is a tacit acceptance of Sharia blasphemy restrictions on criticizing Muhammad.
“Insulting Prophet Muhammad not ‘free speech,’ ECtHR rules,” Daily Sabah, October 25, 2018:
The European Court of Human Rights ruled Thursday that an Austrian woman’s criminal conviction and fine for her statements accusing the Prophet Muhammad of pedophilia did not breach her right to free speech.
The woman, named only as ES by the court, had held seminars on Islam in 2008 and 2009 for the far-right Freedom Party (FPO) where she discussed the prophet’s marriage to his wife Aisha, a child at the time, and implied that he was a pedophile.
An Austrian court convicted her of disparaging religious doctrines in 2011 and fined her 480 euros (548 dollars), a judgment that was upheld on two appeals.
Stating that the court had found that “the applicant’s statements had been likely to arouse justified indignation in Muslims” and “amounted to a generalization without factual basis”, the ECtHR said that the woman’s comments could not be covered by the freedom of expression.
ES’ statements “were not phrased in a neutral manner aimed at being an objective contribution to a public debate concerning child marriages,” the ECHR held, adding that the moderate fine imposed on her could not be considered disproportionate.
The Austrian courts had drawn a distinction between pedophilia and child marriage, which was also a common practice historically in European ruling families.
The ECtHR also underlined that it classified the ‘impugned’ statements as “an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam, which was capable of stirring up prejudice and putting at risk religious peace.”
It noted that the Austrian courts had held that ES was making value judgments partly based on untrue facts and without regard to the historical context….
mike9a says
What is next? Insulting European Court is not free speech!
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
This court is exactly like the Nazi puppet courts during the war. They only did the bidding of their political keepers. Nobody, then and now, is fooled by these perverted charades.
Lydia Church says
Here’s the thing: EVERYTHING is covered under freedom of speech, or it is not ‘freedom of speech’!
YES, we DO have the right to insult mohammed, we do have that freedom of speech!
mohammed was a camel fondling false prophet! There, you see?!
Wellington says
No, Lydia, not EVERYTHING is covered under freedom of speech per the First Amendment here in America. You can’t falsely yell “fire” in a crowded theater and then claim freedom of speech. Neither can you make direct physical threats to an individual and then also claim freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech in America is the most expansive of liberty in all of man’s history but it is not absolute. It approaches absoluteness but it is not absolute, as my two examples above have illustrated.
Learn this and become a wiser and more informed person.
gravenimage says
Everything is covered save things like falsely crying fire in a crowded theater–which puts people in danger–and directly inciting violence, which does the same.
Certainly, criticizing historic figures like Muhammed is covered by the First Amendment.
Dg says
Elisabeth – Let me take some heat off of you. Mohammad was a rancid, POS pedophile. Shows you who Muslims really are!
Mayhem
Krishna says
EU is becoming totaleration state
Salome says
Brexit’s looking even better.
Yokel says
1. Brexit is going to be betrayed by our own government. They are adopting the Hotel California solution, we will have checked out but we won’t be able to leave.
2. ECHR is not an EU institution (28, soon 27 I hope, member states), instead it is part of the Council of Europe (47 members) so we won’t be leaving its jurisdiction any time soon.
Peter says
Muhammad was a terrorist: “I have been made victorious [by Allah] with terror.” The true insult is digging your head in the sand and expecting everyone else to do the same. Face the facts: Islam is the third of mankind’s totalitarian ideologies, and the most dangerous, not just to non-Muslims but to individual liberty.
Michael Copeland says
“No one can regard any field of his affairs as personal and private. … the Islamic State bears a kind of resemblance to the Fascist and Communist states”
Abul Ala Maududi.
https://libertygb.org.uk/news/extremism-–-there-problem-within-islam
duh swami says
Is it OK to insult Allah? I have a whole book of those…
Joe says
The Koran insults Allah. Almost every page in the Koran tells Muslims to hate others. That makes Allah look like the God of Hate. Is Allah so stupid and weak that he allows the Koran to insult him?
Elisha says
What an utterly weak and craven little god “allah” the muslims serve. Not strong (or wise) enough to preserve the “uncorrupted” Bible – we’re supposed to just take their word for it. No one can change “allah’s” word, except the eeeevil apostle Paul, who appears to be too mighty for the most fragile “allah”.
And when THE DEVIL hath seen that they have set so little by him, after certain essays, made in such times as he thought most fitting, he hath given that temptation quite over. And this he doth not only because THE PROUD SPIRIT CANNOT ENDURE TO BE MOCKED, but also lest, with much tempting the man to the sin to which he could not in conclusion bring him, he should much increase his merit. – Thomas More
Dialogue of Comfort Against Tribulation (1553), Book Two, Section XVI
The fear of man brings a snare, But he who trusts in the LORD will be exalted. – Proverbs 29:25
Eigil says
Soo.. Is it not okay to freely Insult Kim Il-sung (semi deity, eternal leader and all that) or Mao
and Joseph Smith(one example of a prophet after the *last one*) for that part. Heck is it okay to criticize Trump?
Kay says
This is unbelievable that this happened in Europe.
WPM says
Someone said those you fear to criticize rules you .Islam rules you from fear and terror ,unquestioning authority of a slave master relation to a master god to man as his slave. A unloving god who needs his man slaves to keep unbelievers in there place, a weak that can not allow anyone to debate his illogical book the Koran as the real word of god.
Wellington says
What about insulting Jesus or Noah or Abraham or Moses? OK to insult Joseph Smith or Brigham Young? How about Buddha? Yes, who can be insulted and who can’t be? It’s a puzzlement, no? Or is it the case that it is only matters Islamic that cannot be subject to insult?
This is what happens when you make a distinction between free speech and hate speech. It gets all very confusing and stupid, replete often times with double standards, and the loser in it all is free speech. A once free Western Europe is rapidly becoming free no more. This is not just pathetic but tragic.
gravenimage says
Grimly true.
WPM says
Correction
A unloving god who needs his man slaves to keep the unbelievers in there place , a weak god that can not allow anyone to debate or question his illogical book the Koran as the real word of god.
gravenimage says
Good post.
Halal Bacon says
I would ask the court to prove the existence of mohamhead, or pay the fine with imaginary money
K. says
Our money -is- imaginary.
IanB says
All gods are imaginary – always have been.
Kilauea says
Muhammad, a Rabbi, and a camel walk into a bar. . . . . . . . . . . . Muhammad said, “Why do you think I brought a step ladder?
Kilauea says
Muhammad, a Rabbi, and a Camel walk into a bar. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Then Muhammad said, “That’s why I brought the step ladder.
elee says
If you treasure free speech, then this item demonstrates your stake in a centuries-old British foreign policy: no single (or “united”) power must ever become dominant on the European continent. Not Napoleon, not the Kaiser, not Hitler, not Stalin. When the Continent unites under any regime, our liberties are endangered.
Ernie says
How true Elee !
abad says
Bingo.
Precisely why it is time for all EU nation members threaten to leave, and the EU finally shut down.
Gene says
Insulting Muhammad is not “free speech,” it’s a civic duty.
abad says
+1
Anjuli Pandavar says
What’s the fine for claiming that Muhammad split the moon, and would the ECHR back the court that imposes it? Would making such a claim be an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam, would it be capable of stirring up prejudice and against whom, and what religious peace might it put at risk?
What’s the fine for claiming that Muhammad went to Heaven on a flying horse, and would the ECHR back the court that imposes it? Would making such a claim be an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam, would it be capable of stirring up prejudice and against whom, and what religious peace might it put at risk?
What’s the fine for claiming that Muhammad recommended dipping a fly in your tea, and would the ECHR back the court that imposes it? Would making such a claim be an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam, would it be capable of stirring up prejudice and against whom, and what religious peace might it put at risk?
What’s the fine for claiming that Muhammad first tried his luck with the Jews (who saw right through him), and would the ECHR back the court that imposes it? Would making such a claim be an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam, would it be capable of stirring up prejudice and against whom, and what religious peace might it put at risk?
Those courts are going to get very very busy. Those judges are going to get very very dodgy. For a start, just think of all the books they’re now going to have to order burnt. Once you make your pact with Islam, you are quickly ensnared by its iniquities and must then forever cover your shame with further iniquities of your own, all the while fattening a laughing Islam.
Guy Forester says
In other words, free speech is what we tell you is free speech. You can speak freely what we approve. The court is currently working on guidelines for thought as well, I am sure.
You cannot fix stupid.
Merkexit says
Dear Pedophile mohamandeggs:
to quote the most famous philosopher of modern times “I fart in your general direction.”.
A million gross insults for ever human butchered by the followers of that gross monstrosity they call “Mohammed”, the most vile Arab ever.
CogitoErgoSum says
I would say that instead of upholding human rights this court has just trampled all over the basic human right of freedom of speech. It’s simply incredible.
Freedom of speech should always be considered a basic human right. It should stand equally with the right of every human being to know the truth. When a person speaks, others should be free to challenge what is spoken, by use of freedom of speech, to determine the truth. To help settle disputes concerning the truth, laws concerning libel and slander should be available as a peaceful means of settling disputes. Threats of violence or or actual physical harm to others with whom we disagree should never be supported — as this court has now done.
What this court has said is that violence and threats of violence take priority over basic human rights. The court may as well dissolve itself right now because it has made itself completely irrelevant.
Warren Raymond says
“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”– Barry Soetoro aka Hussein Obama.
Infidels must not be allowed to “stir up prejudice and putting at risk religious peace.”
Needless to mention that the communist clowns who infest this deplorable “European Court of Human Rights” are not just clueless about Islam, but also about the disaster they & likeminded fools have created for us.
Fedup says
Don’t allow them to become a majority in your countries, or you will all be in prison or beheaded for blasphemy. They put false charges on Christians just to get rid of them. Am sick of this cult of madness and the west pretending they’re just another religion and we’re all nazis and islamophobes. A nine year old is still a child and they’re all pedophiles whether they admit it or not. Damn these freaks are nothing but trouble wherever they’re allowed to plant themselves.
Yokel says
It’s much less than 51% before they impose sharia on the entire state. If I remember correctly, more like 20%.
Robin Datta says
Coercion to refer to a tribal deity as divine, or to the agent of that deity as a prophet elevates that tradition to a state-sponsored status.
It is all the more reason to reject that coercion.
Lydia Church says
We cannot wait for the ‘permission’ to speak the truth.
We must speak the truth. If we do not, not only will freedom of speech totally disappear, but someday so will we. The more we stand up for our rights, that we know we have whether or not ‘they’ approve, the more our rights remain protected, but the more people cave and cower, the faster they disappear. It’s the good old ‘if you don’t use it; you lose it’ principle at work.
Michael F Poulin says
Many of the early European settlers in North America were fleeing persecution from European tyranny…
Come to America again! Escape while you still can!
Gnillik says
From fighting the Nazis to becoming them.
G179 says
Based on this, they should.have banned the Quran too. It contains countless insults to other religions, which are not factual or contextual, and obstruct interreligious peace.
Neil Bochon says
” If you want to know who controls you, look at who you are not allowed to criticize. ” Voltaire
Daniel Clee says
This cannot be real. To begin, it is simply not possible to slander a man for recounting the things he has done. Second, it is a valid interpretation of the historically-document facts to say that Mohammad was a pedophile. As for context and the now tiring, “Well, that was normal back then.” Oh, really? You say that by citing what other example? And even if true, this is still is only a context established on opinion. If you want to assure me that the 54 year old Mohammad was not licking his lips in anticipation as he took his nine year old bride to bed, then you cannot express this anymore than someone else can say, “Bullsh*t!” And let’s say the court’s ruling now sets a precedent. So, since our era of “freedom” is so unusual in comparison with the overwhelming majority of human history, we can no longer say that slavery is bad, that taking the wives and children of the slain enemeny in battle is bad, that homosexuality is good, that transgender is “normal”. Do these judges not only see that they are enabling a blasphemy law, but through their reasoning they cut the roots of honest intellectual approach to the lessons we are meant to learn through reviewing history. This is precisely why Islam is so dangerous to the West. Their “greatest human being who ever lived” is a symbolic battering ram that will destroy the metaphysical foundations upon which our society is built.
Christian Groenheide says
The discussion is UTTERLY false. There are a couple of implications in this court judgement.
Paidion is someone who is still being raised (by parents) philia is love or friendship.
A paedophile is thus someone who loves children. just like a homophile is someone who loves people of the same gender whether married or unmarried. the question here is if it is immoral or completely good and in accordance with the purpose of life. to have a marriage with a 6 year old child. The man is a paedophile simple as that. The question becomes if the perfect man has comitted an error with having a sexual relationship with a child which is monstrous. which makes the man into what we all consider to be a monster. Now the court has ruled that we in europe are comitting an error which is punishable by the law if we find the truth in our hearts that this is a morally reprehensible act and speak up about it. Because it might upset a muslim. We are now not allowed anymore to have our own autonomy. So now homosexuality is ok. with this judgement paedophilia is ok. What is next???
My question is this. Can a 6 year old EVER give moral conset to a sexual relationship if the age of moral accountability in ALL judeo/christian history was 12 or 13 for girls and 13 for boys? bar and bat mitzwah. So a child which CANNOT give moral consent is thus ALWAYS abused. And the moral question is answered. It is objectionable to have a sexual relationship with a child whether inside a so called marriage or not. The child has to reach maturity and then make up their own mind. It is not to be abused or taken advantage of. IF the pastor says: But this boy liked playing sexual games with me so what? Then the pastor is just as in error as the imam Muhammad would be with Aisha. PERIOD!
We are NOT allowed anymore to have moral autonomy (to decide for ourselves what we find reprehensible or good) Because there was never any doubt in what paedophilia means, just if it is morally ok or not in the case of muhammad the false prophet.
UNCLE VLADDI says
More “hurt feewings!” legislation from criminals. (Who else claims subjective hurt feelings should trump all objective facts when confronted with their crimes?)!
Let’s have a look at what they imply: “The Strasbourg, France-based court found that her statements describing Muhammad as a pedophile “had been likely to arouse justified indignation in Muslims” and “amounted to a generalization without factual basis.” So they’re deliberately lying about official islamic facts.
“Such comments, the court said, are not protected by the freedom of expression provisions of Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights.”
So: It is illegal to report the truth about criminals if it might upset other criminals.
“The court asserted her statements “were not phrased in a neutral manner aimed at being an objective contribution to a public debate concerning child marriages.”” One must remain “neutral” towards, (i.e: not oppose) all crimes.
“The European court classified the woman’s “impugned” statements as “an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam, which was capable of stirring up prejudice and putting at risk religious peace.””
In asserting Muhammad was a Prophet of religious Peace, they Submit to islam.
Conclusion: The European Court of Human Rights only supports criminals’ rights.
End PC says
So in Europe Muslims – and Muslims only – have the right to not be offended. Insane.
She was found guilty of words “capable of stirring up prejudice and putting at risk religious peace.” This is high hypocrisy & cowardice since the Court must know that Islam’s doctrines and its Qur’an in particular do exactly that to a much higher degree. Even Muslim’s daily prayers can be accused of such stirrings among Muslims.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnIsL1nWwr0 .
GrumpyMel says
Dear European Court of Human Rights,
Orwells novel “1984” was supposed to be a cautionary tale, not a guidebook.
gravenimage says
European Court of Human Rights: Insulting Muhammad not “free speech”
…………………
What insanity. Criticizing a long dead public figure is the very definition of free speech.
That, and Muhammed was a foul pedophile, kidnapper, rapist, slaver, pirate, war lord, and mass murderer. No figure in history deserves to be criticized more than the “Prophet” of Islam.
Jean-Francois Morf says
Has Aisha invented the 69 position, from 6 to 9 years old?
When an Imam teach us what AntiChrist did, then it is NOT an insult, and when a Christian say the same, then it would be an insult to Muhammad?
Allah+Muhammad+Sharia = Satan+AntiChrist+Bad Spiritus.
Muslims say christians are polytheists, but they also have 3 gods!
Genba says
Have you read the court’s sentence? It’s absolutely preposterous! It shows that Europe is much further down the road of dhimmitude than we thought (and we already thought it was quite far down that road).
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-187188
Sande says
Only an unrepentant pedophile would think exposing pedophilia wrong. I would advice investigative reporters to spend some time digging into the acts of every judge who ruled against this woman for speaking the truth.
At the very least one will probably find bribery or blackmail, and more likely behavior much like the perverted false prophet mohamed.