“Insulting Prophet Muhammad not ‘free speech,’ ECtHR rules,” Daily Sabah, October 25, 2018:
The European Court of Human Rights ruled Thursday [October 22] 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….
Did ES (Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff) “disparage religious doctrines”? No, though she had a perfect right to do so. In this episode she did not discuss Islamic doctrine, but only Muhammad’s life, and only one aspect of that life. To wit, she noted that in the most respected hadith, Sahih Bukhari, Muhammad is reported as having consummated his marriage to Aisha — that is, had sexual intercourse with her — when he was 54 years old and she was nine years old. The Austrian courts that heard her case before it reached the European Court of Human Rights attempted to suggest that Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha was no different from that of the child marriages that centuries ago were made between members of European dynasties, with boys and girls of more or less equal age, between 10 and 13 years old. But those were “marriages” between two children; sexual relations were not contemplated for many years. Muhammad, on the other hand, was 54 when he consummated his marriage to nine-year-old Aisha. That was not a marriage “between children,” but what any reasonable person today would call an example of pedophilia. And that is exactly what Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff called Muhammad’s behavior. She also said that because Muhammad was for Muslims the Perfect Man and Model of Conduct, his behavior was not rejected, but emulated by Muslims. Child brides are thus not uncommon in the Muslim world; some Muslim countries set no lower age limit on brides. Ayatollah Khomeini himself married his wife when she was ten years old, and when he came to power, one of his earliest acts was to reduce the marriageable age of girls to nine years.
The European Court said the applicant’s statements had been “likely to arouse justified indignation in Muslims” and “amounted to a generalization without factual basis.” Sabaditsch-Wolff’s characterization of Muhammad’s behavior may have aroused Muslim “indignation,” but was that indignation necessarily “justified”? When did the European Court become the mouthpiece of Muslims, in deciding that ES’s remark was indeed “likely to arouse justified indignation”? Did she say anything that was untrue in describing Muhammad as a “pedophile”? In the Western world, we should have no trouble characterizing Muhammad’s behavior with Aisha as “pedophilia.” The European Court does not exist to placate Muslims, but to uphold freedom of speech. Or rather, it used to exist for that purpose.
Freedom of speech is never absolute. If it includes “hate speech” directed at members of a race or religion, it can be banned. In American constitutional law, speech that calls for imminent lawless violence (the Supreme Court’s Brandenburg Test), can be banned. ES’s speech was not “hate speech” directed at all Muslims. She did not call for any kind of violence. It was factually correct. But the European Court showed that fear is what guided its decision — the fear that outraged Muslims might become violent when Muhammad is criticized.
The Court said — and this is quoted from the original decision — that it has “ l’obligation d’assurer la coexistence pacifique de toutes les religions et de ceux n’appurtenant à aucune religion, en garantissant la tolérance mutuelle.” The Court has “the obligation to ensure the peaceful coexistence of all religions, and of those who have no religion.” That was never before the Court’s duty. It was always supposed to uphold freedom of speech, not to keep the peace by making sure nothing was said that could offend a particular religion. But that is what the Court has decided is more important: avoiding anything the might upset Muslims and cause them to become violent. By the same reasoning, the European Court would have upheld the banning of Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons, and the cartoons published by Jylllands-Posten.
The European Court of Human Rights claims that ES’s remarks about Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha “amounted to a generalization without factual basis.” Without a factual basis? The generalization had to do with ES’s claim that Muhammad was a pedophile, and that other Muslims have followed his example. But after all, one might argue, he had other wives, none of them were children, and Khadija was even older than Muhammad. Can we really call someone a “pedophile” just because he has one wife who is nine years old?
Nor should we generalize about other Muslims. But is it wrong of ES to have noted the some Muslims may have felt they were justified in emulating the example of Muhammad? Haven’t they? Haven’t child marriages — meaning that the girls are younger than 18 — been permitted in many Muslim states? In Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia? How many would constitute a “factual basis” for the statement that some Muslims justify their own marriages to very young girls by referring to the example of Muhammad?
Same Ibrahim says
Does Europe Still Have Free Speech? The answer is : Yes and No.. In the evil Britian, France, Germany, Denmark and Sweden, it is forbidden to criticize the evil ideology of Islam. But in the Netherlands it is not forbidden to say anything you want to say about Islam. Moreover, demonstrating in front of mosques by anti-islam organizations, such as Pegida, is also not forbidden in the Netherlands. So, the only free country remained in western Europe now is the Netherlands, the land of the great hero : Geert Wilders
Peter Buckley says
Sign the petition to save freedom of speech in Europe:
https://www.citizengo.org/en/node/37129
Indiana Tom says
Europe never really had it.
Westman says
Given the reign of Monarchs, the Feudal System, and their piecemeal dismantlement, Tom, I think you are correct. The very arrogant administration of the EU points clearly to the notion that it believes in being a ruling body rather than a representative body.
The US was fortunate to be created without this ruling notion when George Washington turned down the offer to become its first Monarch.
LB says
“Does Europe (read: European Union) Still Have Free Speech?”
Most definitely not. Judging islamophobia to be illegal aside, the EU recently voted 100% in favor of Article 13 which essentially BANS any and all REPOSTED CONTENT on the internet. Basically, reblogging sites like Jihad Watch would be taken down and its owner sued for exorbitant sums for copyright infringement. Now luckily for us JW readers, the site is hosted in USA (I think) so it won’t be subject to Article 13 because it only applies in EU, however that doesn’t mean it won’t cross the ocean in the future.
And it’s not only reblogging sites that will be affected; ALL internet content will be subject to it including, youtube (and other video hosting sites) videos, social media posts, discussion forums, image hosting sites, EVERYTHING! You can see the purpose of this — everything I listed above are online ways to access alternative news sources to combat the MSM brainwashing narrative, which includes but not limited to “islam is a religion of peace”.
And the worst part of Article 13 is the way it was voted in. Just imagine this: a bunch of old boomers dead inside eurocrats that nobody voted for meet at EU HQ in a giant conference room about once a month to vote for or against various regulations. In case you didn’t know, those people basically do NOTHING AT ALL while making 10 times more money than any engineer or doctor, and are only there because they share “certain” (read: far left) political views that are beneficial for the globalists that run the EU.
If this isn’t enough proof that EU is completely corrupt and needs to be abolished, I don’t know what is.
Janakiraman Rajalakshmi says
All these days I never truly understood what is meant by ”freedom of speech”. Only recently I came to know it is America alone that has freedom of speech. Not India which is fond of calling itself ”the largest democracy”. Indian Constitution says it ”grants freedom of speech”. So it can take it back. Which is what has been happening to clueless Hindus.
One Hindu from Bombay ( Mumbai) wrote in his facebook asking fellow Hindus not to visit the dargah of muslims . At once he was thrown in jail for 45 days. This happened in allegedly pro hindu bjp ruled state.
Another defence analyst tweeted in jest which incensed Odisha’s Chief Minister & hindus of Odisha have all banded together screaming he has ”hurt their sentiments & pride”. He has been held in custody , denied bail & I read even his lawyer cannot access him.
Muslims of course can say anything against others. Entire Indian film industry for decades has been making Hindus particularly Brahmins their butt of ridicule. They have the solid support of communists / leftists of India.
India is one hell of a mess.
gravenimage says
Yes–this sick appeasement of Islam is not limited to Europe.
Anjuli Pandavar says
There is no better time than right now for theatre groups, amateur players, dramatic societies, schools and theatre companies across the free world, but especially in Europe, to stage Voltaire’s “Fanaticism, or Mahomet the Prophet”. This is the play that Tariq Ramadan had successfully intimidated a theatre in Geneva to abandon in 1993 — that was before he became a celebrity, an Oxford professor and finally, the accused facing multiple rape charges. Staging “Fanaticism” is triply appropriate in that it is none other than Voltaire, the playwright of “Fanaticism”, who is today associated with the determined words, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” (not actually Voltaire’s words). Furthermore, Voltaire was, of course, one of the great figures of the Enlightenment, Europe’s gift to humanity that is now under systematic Islamic attack with the aide of an enthusiastic cadre of European collaborators. Invoke our heritage, thereby better to defend it.
By the greatest historic coincidence, Islam is making its most concerted assault on the bastions of the Enlightenment, freedom, democracy, equality and human rights exactly when these cultural achievements are finding traction in the Dar al-Islam, not just amongst the urban elites, as earlier, but across the wider populations. No longer can Islam take an ignorant, superstitious, obedient population for granted. For 1400 years, Islam’s penchant for killing has kept apostasy at bay. Now it is ineffective against apostates, who openly flaunt their apostasy and encourage everywhere the same, most significantly in Muslim countries. Imams, such as Billal Phillips, lament “an avalanche, a tsunami,” of apostasy in places like Canada, believing that “back home” this sort of thing just doesn’t happen. The man, apparently still unaware of the extra punitive measures the Saudi government was forced to introduce to help the perfect religion out of its present difficulties, is in for a rude awakening. Globalisation has brought the Enlightenment to the Muslim world where it has found fertile ground in a vast digitally-savvy population and engendered the autonomous individual, the very antithesis of a Muslim. Though still depressing by modern standards, the social landscape of the Dar al-Islam is no longer one of unmitigated fear, oppression and tyranny at every level. The Enlightenment and its aftermath are undermining Islam from within and the “scholars,” accustomed as they are to deference, obedience and compliance, have no mechanism for dealing with a rising, questioning, thinking population right in their midst. Ya Allah, even women are at it! We owe it not only to ourselves, but also to those defying their bondage in the Dar al-Islam, to fight for our, and now their, heritage of freedom, democracy and human rights, whether the assailant be the OIC or the ECHR
Bacherbazistan says
Here’s Acts 17 Apologetics podcast on this subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ps8iwcxaXV0
mortimer says
The EU has made Mohammedanism the religion of Europe.
gravenimage says
Thanks for the link, Bacherbazistan.
BK says
I am American. I think the mainstream media is doing our country a disservice because they no longer report on what what the Muslim population are doing once they are in a civilized country. The open borders democratic party needs to be voted out to protect our country from the same ravaging they have done to your countries!
rbla says
I wonder if there is anything in this creature’s personal effects or postings that give at least grudging praise to “Hitler was Great” termite tweeting Farrakhan or to the genocidal Mullahs or to Hamas. Nazis have been known to make common cause with such in the past. But one thing is certain. Even if so we will never be permitted to know. No “investigative reporter” from the MSM will seek to uncover this and the authorities in Pittsburg will never reveal it.
The European says
Whatever the court says, it is undeniable that Muhammad had sexual intercourse with a child. So, to call him a child molester for what he had done to a nine-year-old girl is not offensive, it is simply the truth. I always wondered why Muslims are so indignant when you confront them with unpalatable facts about the life of their prophet. Do they hate the truth? Are they so unmanly as to be unable to stand the truth, even if it hurts? Indeed, calling Muhammad a child molester puts a huge stain on his image as the perfect man. But why must he be perfect? Muslims pretend to solely worship Allah, then why do they idolize Muhammad? No man is perfect, if there were such a thing as the perfect man, he would be God. So, when Muslims venerate Muhammad as if he had the attribute of perfection ( which only God can have), are they not idolaters themselves? Are they not guilty of “shirk” ( associating other “gods” with Allah). If they were really serious about strict monotheism, wouldn’t they stop idolizing Muhammad. Wouldn’t theyl accept that their strongman was not a perfect being, wouldn’t they be attempting to live with the flaws of their “prophet” and come to terms with the darker side of his character.
To justify the ruling, the ECtHR made this statement: “Even though criticising child marriages was justifiable, she had accused a subject of religious worship of having primary sexual interest in children’s bodies, which she had deduced from his marriage with a child, disregarding the notion that the marriage had continued until the prophet’s death, when Aischa had already turned eighteen and therefore passed the age of puberty:”
1. Muhammad consummated the marriage when Aisha was nine years old, not when she had passed the age of puberty!
2. Of what relevance is the fact that their “marriage” continued after Aischa’s puberty? Did the continuation of the “marriage” wipe out somehow the disgrace of the child abuse Aischa had to suffer from when she was still a girl aged nine?
3. Are we to infer from the court’s statement that child abuse is legitimate as long as the relationship between the child molester and his victim continues beyond the age of puberty? Any pedophile who manages to force his victim into “marriage” would see this as his vindication. What a crap that is!
gravenimage says
+1
Andreas says
No it doesn’t. I live in Europe . Long before this decision free speech was effectively dead for the common Citizen. You should shut up on :
– Islam
– Migration
– Donald Trump
– Feminism
– Antifa
etc etc
unless of course you do not mind:
– Loosing your job
– Loosing projects if you are self employed / Businessman (Happened to me)
– Getting your kids ostracised in the school (Happened to me).
etc etc.
James Lincoln says
Andreas,
If one wants to seriously talk about the threat of Islam, it’s getting to the point where it has to be your full-time job.
Robert Spencer admits that it would be difficult, at this point, to find work in any other field.
Indiana Tom says
Sort of like the liberal Left Coasts.
I am glad most of my ancestors were FROM Germany.
Andreas says
An example:
I bet 500 € 2 to 1 on the victory of Donald Trump, 2 days before the 2016 Election. I made it absolutely clear that it was not a matter of liking or disliking Trump, but a way to make a quick buck after having weighed the odds.
Not only I did not get paid, I was ostracised as some kind of Nazi. After few months my contract was not renewed.
Guy Forester says
In other words, telling the TRUTH does not pay. I hope that you are able to find something better than what you lost, or that you could find a way to the US.
Guy Forester says
Well Hugh, if you must ask that question, then I think you already know what the answer is, especially when we see the evidence before our eyes.
Tom says
So is the regular calling for the death of the jews by those preaching within the Mosques determined to be protected under free speech? If so, WHY ?? And why is it not investigated as what it really is, HATE speech?
With the latest blow to Merkel and her coalition from the election on Sunday, the EU is now on life support and fading fast. The rise of populist nationalism will be the final nail in the left’s coffin and will see the demise of the EU, and along with it the bias toward a totalitarian Sharia creep.
I hope the speed of the rise of nationalist parties in Europe and elsewhere is accelerated by the recent election results in Germany and Italy so that the creep of Sharia can be halted before our culture and way of life is forever destroyed.
Benedict says
“The European Court said the applicant’s statements had been “likely to arouse justified indignation in Muslims” …….”
Another conclusion could be that the statements had been likely to arouse shame and embarrassment in Muslims who would be faced with the grim reality of their prophet having an unacceptable propensity for children and young girls. The question is why The European Court didn’t choose this much more preferable and constructive conclusion?
Michael Copeland says
Indignation, yes, owing to the discomfort of having such details publicised.
But “justified”?
How on earth can saying what Islam’s sources say JUSTIFY indignation?
The judges are going round in circles.
Renee says
Guess we are already under sharia in Europe
A 54 year old having sex with a 9 or 13 year old is disgusting, no matter prophet or king
Ole Pederson says
It is much worse. You have no clue how bad Islam gets.
The so-called practice of “mufakhathat” (muslims often claim this is only found from anti-islamic sources) means “thighing” i.e. rubbing the genitals, and this was practised by Mohammed when Aysha was six (she only did not lose her virginity before she was 9).
I have read at least four hadiths where Aysha describes how she talked with other women at the well while washing the semen stains off her clothes.
Bahraini Women’s Rights Activist Ghada Jamshir discussed this practise of some Muslims on TV.
gravenimage says
Hugh Fitzgerald: Does Europe Still Have Free Speech? (Part One)
……………….
This is terrifying.
Dr. Darkpool says
It is incredible to me how Europe has not learned the lessons taught to them in previous wars. They simply go on blindly to try to placate and pacify a committed enemy and think that they will be safer for doing so. Amazing that the EU doesn’t understand the lessons that history has taught over and over.
Andrew E Walker says
This is a corrupt decision, which will affect judgments in England. Under English law, you cannot defame the dead, yet if this judgment is applied in England, it brings in Muslim blasphemy law through the back door. It is a truly frightening prospect, particularly because it grants licence to those who are “offended” to indulge in aggression against the innocent speaker..
Carolyne says
In some states in the US girls are allowed to marry at 16 with parental permission. This is a far cry from Mohammed’s pedophilia. I actually do not consider older than 16 to qualify as pedophilia, but Mohammed was a dirty old man who preyed on children, probably both sexes. It is disgraceful that Europe has allowed itself to be put under the thumb of the EU and has lost some of civilization’s most cherished rights.
UNCLE VLADDI says
This ILLEGAL and wholly subjectivist “HURT FEELINGS” nonsense has got to stop !
Offense can only be taken, never given! If someone says something mean and untrue about you, you either consider the source and scornfully laugh it off, file a lawsuit for defamation, (slander and libel are forms of fraud) or a crime report for inciting violence, if they went that far.
But these recent fake judge-made “laws” are really only onus-reversing crimes, as in:
“You have to prove you DIDN’T hurt my feelings, or else you owe me money! Nyah!”
And there’s no such thing as a state of permanent, ongoing “emotional distress” that isn’t deliberately and willfully, habitually obsessed about – because our emotions are mere reflections of the three basic states of space-time (the static past, the fluid present, and the nebulous future, respectively): static fear, fluid greed, nebulous hope. Not exactly worth defending!
Further, libertine “liberal” criminals have to resort to whining about their hurt feewings, simply because they don’t have any actual facts to justify their many crime excuses!
So, being angry at (“hateful” towards) criminals is now the most vile sin, while pitying (“tolerating”) them all as “fellow victims,” is now to be deemed the highest moral virtue!
So much so, that the only advice we hear from “our” hypocrite governments, their pet media, and the corporazi globalist banksters who own them all, seems to invariably be:
“Anyone who doesn’t automatically pity all criminals as fellow victims should be hated!”
Which is why hurting the feelings of criminals by accusing them of their crimes, is now a “hateful” crime itself!
So any and all legislators, judges, and educators who put criminals’ hurt feelings above facts should be fired and JAILED.
And that includes using the words “Respect!” and “Dignity!”
Objectifying people as “victims!” is what really “disrespects their dignity!”
Any and all “laws” criminalizing hurt feelings should be repealed and their originators fired and JAILED, too!
Because all subjectivist “laws” are really adversarial crimes, seeking to use fraudulent slander to extort and enslave others. Fraud, slander, extortion and slavery (aka “Political Correctness”) are already crimes.
Who complains about hurt feelings (aka defending their “dignity”) anyway?! ONLY criminals!
They always feel hurt and left out when others try and succeed and they don’t, so they feel jealous and entitled to demand an equality of outcome and permanent rights (like, to your stuff) without any concomitant corollary responsibilities (like to earn or otherwise have to pay for it) over an equality of opportunity! i.e: to extort a right to remain irresponsibly wrong – to be able to angrily, “hatefully” attack others first while demanding a false right to be pitied for their chosen stance!
Which is why they invented the whole nonsensical and emotive concept of “HATE CRIMES!” – because, in making “hate” into a crime, they extortively try to make it “illegal” for their potential victims to hate their crimes!
Any law-abiding person who gets robbed or extorted doesn’t feel “sad” or “uncomfortable” about it, they feel righteously ANGRY! So noticing a constant demand for pity is one really good way for us to tell an extortive victimology-spewing criminal from a real victim of same!
UNCLE VLADDI says
ALL liberal “hate-speech laws” ARE crimes!!!
“The whole concept of “hate speech” (laws against hurt feelings) is political correctness run amok, a leftist anti-free-speech tool that provides an unlimited excuse to shut down and punish anyone who openly disagrees with establishment dicta. Every totalitarian state has similar laws designed to protect the rulers. Such laws have no place in a free society.”
– Patrick1984 –
But Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), National Socialist Party v. Skokie (1977), R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), Virginia v. Black (2003), Snyder v. Phelps (2011) These SCOTUS cases show that unpopular speech is still protected speech.
SO: What is “hate-speech” and why should it be considered a crime if it’s NOT already: a) a threat; and b) slander (fraud)?
If it’s not either PHYSICALLY threatening speech – or emotionally threatening BECAUSE it could physically impact one’s life, like how fraudulent slander causes other people to react to one as if one were a criminal in need of hating and beating – then it’s THE TRUTH: and so it SHOULD cause one the emotional distress of ‘hurt feelings!’ So it isn’t objectively “offensive,” but is, in fact, socially beneficial in that it helps defend society from criminals, whether or not said predictably victim-blaming criminal is subjectively “offended” by their victims being notified about THEIR offenses!
Having no facts to justify their aggressive hypocrisy, all criminals will resort to using emotive ‘arguments’ to justify their crimes by playing the victims. So they (liberals, muslims) can be relied on to try to criminalize hurt feelings and to make offending people, (i.e: the criminals, by accusing them of their crimes) illegal, too!
ALL “Hate-Speech Laws” ARE CRIMES!
“Progressive” criminals – who like all criminals desire an equality of outcome over a true equality of opportunity, and to get it will always try to socially engineer ever-more rights and ever-less responsibilities for them selves, by offloading their responsibilities onto their victims by stealing their victims’ rights – pretend to hold submissive masochism as the highest virtue (for their victims to hold, not them) and the ultimate crime to be causing offense and hurting other people’s (criminal’s) feelings, (i.e: by accusing them of their crimes).
So they want to make it illegal to accuse criminals of their crimes, since that might hurt their feelings and in offending them with the often-painful truth, “make” them commit even more crimes!
Is there anything which really ought to qualify as hate speech and be banned?
NO – not because it’s “hateful” (because that sort of nonsense is only making subjective assessments based on emotions;) and “HATE” is really only the perfectly natural human response of perpetual anger towards ongoing crimes (like islam); without ‘hate’ we would never bother to accuse criminals of their crimes in order to stop those crimes.
Unreasonable false displays of hatred and anger on the other hand, are what the Left is good at – but that’s already illegal, not because of the anger displayed – that’s just the outrageous holier-than-thou virtue-signalling packaging used to disguise their preposterous extortion attempts – but because it’s fraudulent slander.
Such criminal leftists who try to make “hate” into a crime, only ever make it ‘illegal’ to hate crime itself!
Speech which is already disallowed is incitement of immediate violence and death-threats … and even those aren’t illegal, if say they call for the police to use violence to counter ongoing mob violence and looting, or call for the death-penalty for murderers!
….
Further, ALL politicians who craft “hate-speech laws” and ALL cops who arrest people for “hate-speech crimes” and ALL lawyers and judges who prosecute people for them, should themselves be fired and JAILED for putting “hurt feelings” before FACTS!
Especially in the case of islam!
Pretending that the global crime-gang called islam is a “race” of poor swarthy animal-people, oppressed by the mentally superior whites, in order to slander everyone who notices it’s a crime-gang as a hatefully bigoted “racist” – is to deliberately enable that crime-gang’s crimes by hiding and destroying the evidence of same, and thus to be a willing accessory to those crimes. Since islam is a murder-gang, and the penalty for committing and enabling the commission of murder is DEATH, anyone and everyone who calls an opponent of muslims, islam, and their global jihad, a “racist!” should be lawfully put to death.
Everyone who defends islam and muslims endorses crime.
Endorsing crime IS a crime, so those doing it are criminals.
Right in the Qur’an is: the permission to murder Jews and Christians (Surah 9:29), to terrorize all non-Muslims (8:12), to rape young girls (65:4), to enslave people for sex (4:3), to lie about one’s true goals (3:54), and the command to make war on all the infidels (9:123) and subjugate the entire world to Allah (9:33).
Are death-threats legal? NO.
Is extortion legal? NO.
Is slavery legal? NO.
Is murder legal? NO.
Is rape legal? NO.
THEN ISLAM IS ILLEGAL!
Rape, slavery, robbery, extortion and murder are never OK!
Everything muslims pretend to see as “holy” is already a crime!
So nobody has a legal right to practice islam anywhere on earth!
…
IN TRYING TO MAKE CRITICISM OF THE GLOBAL CRIME GANG CALLED “ISLAM” INTO A CRIME, TO PROTECT THAT CRIME GANG BY HIDING THE EVIDENCE OF ITS CRIMES, SUCH PEOPLE ARE CRIMINALS AND TRAITORS TO RATIONALITY, CIVILIZATION, AND HUMANITY ITSELF.
But hadn’t you heard?! Being angry at (“hateful” towards) criminals is now the most vile sin, while pitying (“tolerating”) them all as “fellow victims,” is to be deemed the highest moral virtue, these days!
So much so, that the only advice we hear from “our” hypocrite governments, their pet media, and the corporazi globalist banksters who own them all, seems to invariably be:
“Anyone who doesn’t automatically pity all criminals as fellow victims should be hated!”
Which is why hurting the feelings of criminals by accusing them of their crimes, is now a “hateful” crime itself!
UNCLE VLADDI says
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.
Don Rugdee says
One can tell they are very protective of their heads. Why worry about people running around with mental illness. Could we now say the sword is mightier than the pen.