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.
Did you know they speak Austrian in Austria.
A catholic priest can be a pedophile, but a Muslim mullah can’t be. Oh I get it now. Just make sure you choose the right religion to trash or you’ll get in trouble. Thank god for the 1st amendment.
Independent Bob – you got it! Jesus bad! Muhammed good!
Telling the truth about Islam or Muhammad is conjured up by Islam to be blasphemy and is punishable by death. They are just applying sharia and submitting to Islam, which is what the word means any way.
At least we don’t have a president who whines about “opening up those libel laws” in order to chill speech he doesn’t like. That would be so unAmerican.
We have libel laws that protect regular people more than public figures. You’re allowed to say whatever you want about a public figure, even if you could be sued for libel if it was someone not famous.
Our Constitution does not protect people who lie about others from having to compensate them. On the one hand, public figures tend to get memes and gossip circulating about them that is totally untrue. If people can be sued for that, they would be less likely to pass on any criticism, which can have a chilling effect on keeping government in line. That government that conservatives don’t want to make too powerful.
On the other hand, the mainstream media have routineley published stories that were demonstrably false at the time. Take the minor incident where the media accused Trump of being a boor for dumping his bowl of rice carelessly into a koi pond. What they didn’t show was the beginning of the video, where the prime minister of Japan and Trump both carefully spooned in rice for the fish. When the PM ran out of most of his rice, he dumped the rest in, and Trump just followed suit. They deliberately edited the video to make Trump look bad. That’s a lie. They have been caught being untruthful against conservatives and Trump over and over again, but apparently, they can do whatever they like. The problem is that the media shapes public opinion. Right now, it is a Democratic Propaganda Machine. Should the media be allowed to lie to the American people in order to influence elections? It’s a difficult question.
Please note that there is no Constitutional protection for libel. However, there are Constitutional Protections on free speech and religion. The Left has been pushing blasphemy laws, that would only protect Muslims. How often have the Left threatened violence or harassment against anyone who voices an opposing opinion? What about the selective bias against conservative students and their speakers in publicly funded universities?
The Left targets the speech of political opponents, Christians for their religion, and the 2nd Amendment.
The Left is no champion of free speech or freedom of religion. Because it strives for a very powerful central government at the expense of individual rights, it also tries to undermine our Constitution, which protects individual rights. The Left claims it emulates Scandinavia, but Scandinavia is Capitalist, not Socialist. What the Left is actually doing is its very best to position the US to become another Socialist or Communist dictatorship like Venezuela or the USSR, where only the well-connected elites have power, wealth, and enough food to eat.
Returning defamation law to what it was in 1966 before our odious appellate courts gave the press a free pass to lie their assess off contra anyone on whom they turned their gunsights would be just fine.
Pedophile priests need to be castrated, shot in the groin, and killed. Those who defend them need to be called “Cat O Licks”. Cats who get sexually assaulted by humans need to fight back.
Prohibitionist will always create a justification. They’re the scourge of the planet.
If you can’t criticize Mohammed for consummating his marriage when she was 9, then how can you criticize Catholic priests for being predatory pedophiles?
You cannot libel garbage when you say it stinks.
Arranged marriages were common with children as young as newborns. Consumating such marriages at too young an age was discouraged because it physically damages the young girls’ body. Fistulas still are common consequences of child brides. Then the poor women were ostracized by their families. Throughout history, marriage occurred at younger ages than today due to decreased life expectancy. Even then, girls were not married until they began menarche. https://study.com/academy/lesson/average-age-of-marriage-throughout-history.html (“marriage before puberty was very rare.” “in ancient Rome, a society who did keep extensive written records, someone was considered eligible for marriage at age 14.”)
Forced marriage is rape under the color of law. Having sex with a prepubescent child is pedophilia. Period. A normal man is not sexually attracted to a 9 year old. In addition to this arranged marriage, consummated with a prepubescent child, Mohammad was a warlord who raped and pillaged, kept sex slaves, and even raped them in the bedrooms of his many wives’ houses. Today, we would call that pedophilia sex addiction, lack of impulse control, and probably a variety of other diagnosis.
Another point is that Mohammad was supposed to be the Messenger of Allah. We are to believe that Allah condoned sex with 9 year old girls. An omniscient being who loved his creations would be wiser than that. However, as Aisha herself said, “I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires.” This was in regards to all of these timely revelations granting Mohammad the rights to marry more wives than any of his followers, as well as limitless sex slaves.
Now, to be fair, Aisha’s complaint has been blown off by clerics as merely natural spousal jealousy, as her husband boinked or raped anything that moved. However, the reality is that apostates were murdered, so, what could a woman in Mohammad’s stable realistically do about her situation?
Moderate Muslims have to just ignore about 2/3 of the Qu’ran. When pressed, they would have a very difficult time defending Mohammad’s actions. They cannot just be viewed in the context of the times. He was supposed to be the only one with the ear of Allah, who is timeless. Allah’s decrees were supposed to be eternal, as true in modern times as they were a thousand years ago. Which is why ISIS and Boko Haram confidently believe that raping, pillaging, and sex slavery are laudable traits in believers.
In order for Islam to be reformed, they have to discard the notion that Allah’s decrees and the hadith are timeless and eternal. That would indicate that Mohammad did not tell the truth. But if he did, then how do they explain why they don’t all wear thobes, dunk flies in their drinks, drink water contaminated with animal carcasses, drink camel urine to cure ills, believe the sun sets in a puddle of oily water, force Jews and Christians to be dhimmi who have to pay a jizia to avoid getting killed, or killing Jews. How can Mohammed be completely truthful, and all of that be true? It’s a quandary most Muslims just don’t think about.
Not my reading of the Quran. Nor that of Juan Cole.
Then you don’t know your hadith.
No, but it is not the Quran.
So not the Word of God.
David, you don’t seem to know very much about Islam. Muslims are guided by the Qu’ran and the Hadith. This is universally acknowledged by Muslim clerics.
However, I also included a link to the Qu’ran with plenty of verses about raping, pillaging, etc.
Just got a chance to read the Court’s summary of the opinion. Here’s the rationale of what-could-only-be Justice Petain writing for the majority:
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.
The fact that Muhammad married a six-year-old and consummated the marriage when the “bride” was 10-years-old is unworthy of the characterization of Pedophilia simply because it is a “value judgment” designed likely bring about “justified indignation” from our Moslem brothers. Thus, our speaker truth-telling is the problem and not the depravity she finds in the conduct of the “Prophet.” This is a true “Alice in Wonderland” Court. It’s capitulation to Sharia law is scandalous and cowardly and it represents the ultimate betrayal of Western values. It’s glorification of surrender as “balancing” the interests is laughable. Even Chamberlain had the misguided notion that his appeasement of Hitler would bring peace. This court likely insures the opposite result and can’t rely on Chamberlain’s naivete of evil as the excuse.
My original remark was a flip disparagement of the European Court. Now I find it less flip than accurate.
The only glimmer of hope is this footnote explaining the decision is a “chamber judgment”: “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. ”
Here’s the drivel of a press release summarizing the opinion.
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press#{%22itemid%22:[%22003-6234980-8105265%22]}
Better page. See left-hand column:
https://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home
The ECHR’s reasoning would probably have prevented the infamous “piss Christ” work of “art” depicting a crucifix submerged in a vessel containing the “artist’s” urine. That would be OK with me.
Absolutely, that piece was terrible. It should have been filled with manure.
An excellent reason to pass legislation forbidding courts to use any non American laws when deciding cases in this country.
But in Ukraine, a part of Europe, from UNIAN News:
Zhytomyr region bans movies, books, songs in Russian language
Well, Jonathan Turley, what about that? And just how many Ukrainians have died in the war with Russia in Donbas? What about that?
Ummm, dogs get eaten alive by Mango Worms in Gambia. What about that? China bans criticism of government and censors movies. GOOGLE and FB allow China to censor their products.
Any other non sequiturs? Save the whales? Plastic Garbage Patch?
My comment was about freedom of speech, but it seems you are too dense to recognize that on your own.
Since you are too vacuous, Mr. Benson, to understand the probable intent of Karen’s comment I will explain it to you.
It becomes tiring to read you continually berating our host by declaring that he does not write according to some arbitrary list of topics you demand, and in a manner that only comports to your own opinions or desires and for that matter facts as you see them. So she resorted to the delivery she did to show through sarcasm that she and likely many others also no longer are interested in reading your complaining.
For that matter, how about you step up to the plate and write such an article on those topics you presently demand Professor Turley craft? We recognize that it is much easier to gripe than to spend an hour or more making such an article. You can even do it here in the form of a comment. Better yet, create your own web log and author whatever it is that drives you. Maybe in the long run you can find an audience of your own that bestows whatever fruits your arrogance craves.
And another thing, don’t believe for a moment that deriding a person of relevance and reverence elevates you to a strata higher than who you complain of. Remaining here trying to ride Professor Turley’s coat tails for this purpose shows ineptitude and laziness more than it does creativity or resolve.
But it is not only our host, it’s nearly everyone else that you degrade in order to serve your weak perception of self-worth, it is ordinary commenters as well. (Those who you refer to so regularly as dwellers in Bedlam.) Well guess what? You are one of those Bedlam dwellers yourself. Oh we know that you have bragged that you are smarter than most others here recently, but recognize that it is a common maxim that you are the company you keep.
I know that I stated I was wasting my time replying to your comments but I am getting really tired of having to see you eviscerate and dismiss some worthwhile individuals who actually make the time to provide engaging words for other visitors to enjoy.
Of all the years you spent in academia you certainly did learn not much in terms of respect or humility.
I have never claimed to be “smarter” than “most others”. Parse more carefully.
I am concerned about Jonathan Turley’s absolutism regarding a so-called freedom of speech. In the limited time available I attempt to raise this point.
Yes, repeatedly.
Don’t take my word for it Mr. Benson, here’s a sampling of your own words over the past ten or so days:
That is the manner in which you frequently treat others here, David.
Only a few, Darren.
But I am rather knowledgeable about the peopling of the globe, especially the Americas. I keep up and most do not.
David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me twenty-one citations (one from the OED and two from the Old Testament) and the source of a quotation, after twenty weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – reading popular scientific journals does not mean you are “keeping up.” Millions of others who read the same magazines in their dentist or doctor’s office read the same articles you do.
David – most of your comments are merely ad hominem against other commenters. You also make statements but refuse to provide a link, which is not typical for someone in the sciences. People usually provide a link so that others may make an informed decision whether to agree or disagree, or learn something new, and then an interesting discussion can ensue. You are not a source.
You complain often about the choice of topic of our host, who often posts his articles late at night for all of us to enjoy. That’s rude, but one also wonders why you don’t just start your own blog. If you don’t like most of the topics our Professor chooses, why do you keep reading him? If you don’t like most of us, why do you keep reading and responding to our comments? Why do you almost always get personal? Speaking of which, I need to apply that rule to your comments and practice scrolling past.
Speaking of which, I need to apply that rule to your comments and practice scrolling past.
You’ve acquitted yourself quite well Karen. Thank you for taking the time and providing links to support your posts.
Thanks, Olly. Paul used to remind me not to dial it in and link to Wikipedia, and he was right. Following links is one of the ways that I have learned so much on this blog. And of course your own opinions on individual rights helped me formulate my own.
I keep up and most do not.
What evidence do you have that most others do not keep up? Prove it or you’re just making stuff up again.
Additionally, how would anyone know what knowledge you have if you don’t share it? I would estimate 90%+ of your posts on this blog are merely a rating of someone else’s post. What’s the benefit for your head to store vast amounts of knowledge if it’s only used to give a metaphoric thumbs down on someone’s post? Anyone can do that; and anyone who does that without explaining why, without links or citations is worthless. Prove you are better than that.
David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me twenty-one citations (one from the OED and two from the Old Testament) and the source of a quotation, after twenty weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – you are Making Stuff Up again.
Thank you Darren. That was well put.
The article is about the erosion of free speech in the West. Western Europe never had a Constitution that protects individuals like the US. We tend to think of the culture of Western Europe to be just like ours, but it differs in key areas such as speech rights. However, it is sliding into an ever more authoritarian regime.
The member states of ECHR who were formerly part of the USSR were Socialist, and have no history of speech protections. That includes Ukraine. However, the court is based in France, which is part of the West. It is the ECHR’s ruling that Professor Turley discussed, not behavior in a Socialist country that is a member. It is also the erosion of speech protections in the West that are at issue. Ukraine never had such protections, and even less so now that they lost the Crimea to Russia. You might as well comment on the lack of speech in Serbia, also a member of the ECHR.
Austria was considered part of Western Europe, although it was later reclassified as Central Europe. Ukraine was Eastern Europe. Western Europe was Catholic or (later) Protestant, while Eastern Europe was Orthodox.
You misunderstand his point, as well as my own.
When will Austria start prosecuting publishers of the Quran for what it says about women and Jews and infidels in general?
Could try reading it first…
https://quran.com
QURAN – 70:22-30
“Not so the worshippers, who are steadfast in prayer, who set aside a due portion of their wealth for the beggar and for the deprived, who truly believe in the Day of Reckoning and dread the punishment of their Lord (for none is secure from the punishment of their Lord); who restrain their carnal desire (save with their wives and their slave girls, for these are lawful to them: he that lusts after other than these is a transgressor…” (Note: Sex Slaves are Lawful)
QURAN – 4:24
“And all married women are forbidden unto you save those captives whom your right hand possess. It is a decree of Allah for you.
QURAN – 33:50
“Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty;…”
“Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir”
“He [the Lord of Alexandria] presented to the prophet Mariyah, her sister Sirin, a donkey and a mule which was white….The apostle of Allah liked Mariyah who was of white complexion and curly hair and pretty…. Then he cohabited with Mariyah as a handmaid and sent her to his property which he had acquired from Banu al-Nadir.”
“He used to visit her there and ordered her to veil herself, he had intercourse with her by virtue of her being his property.”
“That is, Mariyah was ordered to veil herself as did the Prophet’s wives, but he did not marry her.”
David – if you think that the Qu’ran does not condone raping, pillaging, sex slaves, or murdering entire cities if they were not Muslim, dividing up the women and goods among the Muslim warriors, then you haven’t read anything of the Qu’ran besides catchy quotes lifted from the early days when Mohammad spoke peaceful verses. This was when he was still trying to get followers to his religion, when he was outnumbered by the Jews, Pagans, and Christians. Once he got enough followers, he became a warlord, and his verses became sword verses. (Abrogation).
The American Founders issued a statement of the obvious.
People enjoy every conceivable, natural and God-given freedom, per the Constitution and Bill of Rights, with emphasis on the 9th Amendment while the government is severely restricted to security and infrastructure which facilitates the freedom of citizens.
That which is God-given is literally universal
(for those of you in Rio Linda, that includes Europe).
____________________________________________________________________________
People shall adapt to the outcomes of freedom.
Freedom does not adapt to people…
dictatorship does.
Common sense is going right down the memory hole. Big Brother is settling in quite nicely over in Europe.
Muhammad was a pedophile, serial rapist, murderer, and warlord. The exact opposite of Jesus Christ. There, I said it.
Sounds about right, Ivan.
These are incontrovertible facts discussed openly in the Qu’ran. That whole bit about saving one life equating to saving the entire world actually discussed what Jews do. Sex slavery and rape were condoned.
Jesus never raped anyone, destroyed a village, waited with his armies outside in the morning to hear if the call to prayer sounded, and he certainly did not condone lying in order to promote the faith (Taquiya). In addition, Mohammed advised that you can break treaties in order to destroy your enemies, an example of which is the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah.
There was some poetic irony. Mohammad was killed by a Jewish woman. After slaughtering her family and conquering her city, he stupidly had her prepare dinner for him and his followers. She poisoned the mutton. She told him that if he was a real Prophet, the poison couldn’t hurt him. If he wasn’t, then he was a false prophet that needed to be got rid of. Aisha said no one suffered as much as Mohammad did, during the two agonizing weeks until the poison finally killed him.
Karen…..Thank you……I never knew how Mohammad died. That’s justice, in my opinion!
Hmmm. Sooo, let’s talk about intersectionality.
“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.”
Does that mean that Christians (and Muslims and Jews) can call queers, “abominations”, and call for them to be executed? Without committing a hate crime?
Does that mean that Christians (and Muslims and Jews) can call abortion, “murder”, and those who do it and have it done, “murderers”?
What if Bob Jones University set up a European Campus, and held to its belief that the Bible condemns inter-racial marriage?
Sooo, what I am saying is that maybe the Europeans here are trying to undo post-modernism in a Freudian sort of way.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky – only Muslims can get their feelers hurt.
LOL Paul C.!!
A lot, maybe even most of your posts I’m all on board.
Bob Jones University should have to register as a paid foreign agent of Israel. As should any “religion” (i.e. all “evangelical Protestant” branches such as the SBC) with public documented “doctrine” that modern day Israel is the fulfilment of OT Israel, e.g. Zionism, which Zionist doctrine DNA science and the NT most positively contradicts about 1000x.
If _od desired “Jews” to own what was Palestine, he/she/it erred in not signing a Deed of Title to prove _od’s intent. Till I see said Title, I say bull dung.
And even if DNA and the NT did not contradict Zionism, no real or alleged “race” of people deserve to own any piece of real estate no matter how strong is the perceived connection between real estate and the race’s likelihood of disappearing or thriving. People, races, and borders constantly change. “Jews” have no more right to exist than do Americans or any other people. Any “right” to exist ends when the world decides differently.
If one connects a right to real estate ownership with the likelihood of a race of people thriving, then the USA needs to leave N. America and give it back the natives who once thrived here.
Frankly, I’d not give a rat’s behind whether Israel existed or not, if the USA would rather just simply stop taking sides. The USA’s relationship with Israel is the primary reason the US sleeps in the same bed with the most ruthless dictators on the face of the earth, the Al Saud Krime Syndikate in Saudi Arabia, which beheads and cuts of the hands of more persons annually than every other Islamic sect combined.
I see Joseph Jones has a new handle.
DSS – I have to change my name. I am feeling left out that I do not have a new handle. I have been me since Feb. 2014. Actually, I have been me since conception, however, I am referring to my presence on this blawg. 😉
Bob Jones U lost its NFP status over that, it’s a recorded case. I think they changed school policy after that to get it back.
Yes in Canada there are incidents where Christians condemning homosexual conduct were subject to prosecutions. At least one. I can’t get the details now.
The USA still has a wider range of free speech as any nation on Earth, even if private sanctions may be more forceful, government actions still are pretty restrained where punishing speech is concerned.
Release Warren Jeffs!!!!! The man is a prophet. He says he’s worthy of worship!
Jesus Christ. Religions are systems of thought. Like any other system of thought they should be open to criticism. Having sex with a young girl as an adult is pedophilia.