A new decision from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) confirms the all-out assault on free speech that has taken hold of Europe. In a chilling decision, the ECHR upheld a fine levied against an Austrian woman who called Muhammad a pedophile for his arranged marriage with a young girl while in his 50s. The court ruled that such views are not protected by free speech because they violate “the right of others to have their religious feelings protected.” The decision confirms the near complete subjugation of free speech to religious and other views in society.
In 2009, the defendant held two seminars entitled “Basic Information on Islam,” in which she compared Muhammad’s marriage to a six-year-old girl, Aisha, to pedophilia.
Most accounts put Aisha’s birth around late 613 or early 614. She was six or seven years old when she was married to Muhammad in Mecca and he consummated the marriage when she was reportedly ten. Muhammad was around 50 at the time.
For most of us in the free speech community, the differing views of this marriage is immaterial to the right of both sides to be free to state their views. However, complainants have sought to silence critics like this woman by seeking criminal fines.
Moreover, I am not particularly interested in how the woman expressed her views since they raise core religious and political values. The court said that she 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 pedophilia?” That was found to be “disparaging religion” and lower courts upheld the conviction.
The Strasbourg-based ECHR ruled that the woman’s “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.”
The ECHR engaged in what is now an all-too-familiar effort to deny its obvious denial of free speech by saying that freedom of religion did not protect religions from criticism but they upheld the punishment of someone for doing precisely that. It simply declared that the woman’s comments “could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship.”
The opinion is perfectly Orwellian in saying that you cannot get away with using free speech by simply claiming the right of free speech. The court rejected that people are entitled to free speech by simply “pack[ing] 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.”
That type of circular logic would be laughable if it were not so chilling.
We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, particularly in France (here and here and here and here and here and here) and England ( here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). Much of this trend is tied to the expansion of hate speech and non-discrimination laws. These prosecutions are part of a new and dangerous attack on free speech. We previously discussed the rise of anti-blasphemy laws around the world, including the increase in prosecutions in the West and the support of the Obama Administration for the prosecution of some anti-religious speech under the controversial Brandenburg standard. The effort by Muslim countries to establish an international blasphemy standard ran into opposition in the West so a new effort to launched to use hate crimes and discrimination law to achieve the purpose.
This new ruling shows the rapid abandonment of the European courts of fundamental values of free speech. The ECHR has now established itself as legitimizing the criminalization of speech in Europe.
What’s interesting here is that there are no fanatical Catholics threatening to blow people up when their priests are found to be pedophiles and smeared all over the media. In fact, the Christians call for it. I would venture that it is not the main stream Muslim culture that are offended but the fanatics. Most rational Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc realize that these stories represent eternal truths and are interpretive; but are not meant to be taken literally. Unfortunately the proportion of fanatical Muslims is way, way, way out of balance with the times of this world. However, there is no need to go looking for trouble; there is enough in the works as it is.
oddly, we pretty much agree again. must be the full moon making you crazy
If pedophilia is OK for Muslims, why isn’t it OK for the Catholic Church? Questioning it is saying that the Catholic hierarchy is not worthy of managing worship activities.
@Sam
That’s easy! The Catholic Church is a symbol of an evil, white, patriarchal, Western Culture. Muslims are mostly non-white and from the third world. That means we cannot criticize Islam. If you do criticize Islam, you are a bigot who should be prosecuted. Get it?
antonio
I am not a fan of Muhammed, however, I do not think he was a pedophile.
Do you believe the defendant in this case was trying to make a historical point regarding pedophilia merely to correct the record? The point is whatever was 7th century acceptable is not 21st century acceptable in western civilization. If the EU is accepting migrants from cultures that continue to practice their religion with all of its 7th century customs and traditions, then it is the right of the citizens of these countries to publicly denounce these abhorrent practices that have no place in western civilization or the 21st century for that matter. They have feelings too.
OLLY – I think the woman is historically wrong, but that is no reason to fine her.
I think the woman is historically wrong,
How?
OLLY – you have to look at history in light of its time, not present time. Consummating marriage is not pedophilia, regardless of the age of the male or female at that time in history.
you have to look at history in light of its time, not present time.
Duh. Apparently you believe she was trying to claim the consummation of a marriage with a 10 year old in the 7th century was considered pedophilia at that time. I certainly don’t. I believe her point was that whatever was an acceptable practice in the 7th century can be described by 21st century moral truths. Why would she be expressing this viewpoint?
What is more likely her point is that western civilization has rightly condemned pedophilia; a practice that is still supported within Islam based purely on your argument that it was legal for Muhammed; therefore it should be acceptable today.
What other 21st century moral truths should we not be able to use to describe events throughout history? Slavery? Divine right of kings?
OLLY – that is a different argument and there I think she would be right. Once Muslims move to the West then they must live by Western laws. However, I do think that some governments have allowed them to retain their ME model and are actually afraid to crack down on crime in their ghettos.
However, I do think that some governments have allowed them to retain their ME model and are actually afraid to crack down on crime in their ghettos.
That’s the point. And if it goes unchallenged, it will be the downfall of western civilization.
OLLY – Western Civilization is falling down, falling down, falling down. Western Civilization is falling down. My fair lady.
OLLY – they have made an arrest in the bombs case. News at 2:30 Eastern.
Doesn’t this cut both ways? Shouldn’t the rights of the woman be protected? It is my very considered religious opinion that the European Union needs to be immediately destroyed.
I have always been on the cusp on this issue. He did marry her at six, but he did not consummate until she was ten, which was a legitimate age of consummation during that period. After his death, she was also one of his greatest supporters. I am not a fan of Muhammed, however, I do not think he was a pedophile. Still, I think people are free to their opinions.
ECHR is in lock step with the U.N.
I will just mention 9 of the 47 members at the U.N.
Rwanda,Burundi,Egypt,Cuba,Venezuela,
India,China,U.A.E and SAUDI ARABIA.
And to think, we saved that Euro-trash twice. We need better friends.
The court ruled that such views are not protected by free speech because they violate “the right of others to have their religious feelings protected.”
Religious feelings protected? If the defendant was a Christian for instance, would she not have equal protection of her religious feelings? If her religious feelings concerned protecting the lives of children from a religion that still practices what most western cultures would classify as pedophilia, are those religious feelings subordinate to Islam? Same question but have the defendant be an atheist or Muslim herself; how is it determined who’s feelings are superior? What standard are they using?
One thing for certain, for all of those that believe all rights come from government, this story is a great example of what you’re enabling a regime to do.
I just got back from visiting my family in Germany – they really dislike the U.S. (embodied in Trump).
They cannot understand that at least 40% of us like him and would probably vote for him again. The Germans see that as part of the American madness.
And they blame our free speech for the divisiveness that exists in our country, thinking that by suppressing outlying views, they promote harmony in their continent.
The European naivete is appalling.
Great, maybe they’ll throw us out and start paying for their own defense from the Russians.
Or maybe they’ll start paying for their own defense from the US.
They’ve never been in danger from us, you wanker.
monumentcolorado……….I understand too well, unfortunately. My first cousin, the only one I actually know, has lived in Switzerland for 45 years. She is also a member of the Socialist Party. She is so proud to attend every and any anti-Trump rally in “Central Europe. She will not even entertain the idea of listening to and conversing with anyone who is conservative. She is so intolerant, but to hear her tell it, she and the Socialists are the most compassionate people in the world! We hardly e-mail each other anymore. There’s nothing to talk about except the weather.
This decision is deeply disturbing and disappointing.
Again, the EU is not the only intergovernmental organization which deserves to be liquidated. The Council of Europe should cease to exist as well.
The truth: ‘human rights’ NGOs are suffused with humbugs peddling humbug. Freedom House was once an exception, but it’s decaying as we live and breathe. The ‘human rights’ discourse is largely fraudulent and will remain fraudulent no matter who is expounding it. Abolish these tribunals.
This is another example of something Turley does not wish to acknowledge, and that is that lawyers, academics, and affiliated functionaries have a lot of power they do not deserve and should not exercise. And they don’t think think Joe Average has a right to speak anymore than the GW faculty thinks the bookkeepers and HVAC techs on that campus should serve on the endless committees set up for ‘institutional governance’, even though faculty committees are often passing on matters about which they don’t know jack. It’s time for the country class in all western countries to put these people firmly in their place, BAMN.
Convicted by their own judges their court is pedophilic in nature. .
The key phrase in the ruling was that it “served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria.” Europe has admitted millions of violent, fanatic Muslims, and now must strip the rights of its own citizens and undermine its own culture because they fear barbarians in their midst.
There’s an indigenous Muslim population in Albania, the Yugoslav states, and Bulgaria. These aside, the Muslim population of non-Russian Europe is about 5% of the total, or shy of 25 million. Most people with rude social or political views are inert. They have no impact on public life. As for violence, the whole of the criminal class in a population of 25 million might include 1.5 million people. Burglars, thieves, drug dealers, muggers, &c. The number who are going to commit political crimes or commit sex crimes driven by cultural maladaptation ain’t getting anywhere near seven figures. It might not exceed six figures.
The last one leaving Europe as we knew it, please turn-off the lights.
We have a caravan coming from the south trying to overwhelm our border. At the rate Europe is going we could see an armada trying to breach the eastern seaboard.
Elites in power in much of Western Europe are fearful of two things: Muslims in their nations; and the appearance of being labeled racists. That is what this actually stems from. It is a form of appeasement that Neville Chamberlain himself would call into question.
I highly doubt that an analogous statement was made of a figure in Christianity a sanction would be so eagerly prosecuted. But in this case the old “Someone Complained” state of being becomes “Someone Must be Punished”.
They’re likely not afraid of much except in a pro forma way. The muzzies are an instrument they use to marginalize their domestic working class and the threat of violence is an excuse they use to tell other people to shut up, which is what they want to do anyway.
Yes that is EXACTLY right and well said. This is the “why” of the story, just said by Tab.
Yes, more than chilling.