One step forward, one step back

[xoggoth]

Two related news items:

Irish voters have overwhelmingly supported the proposal to remove the prohibition on blasphemy from the Constitution.

In other news a woman has been convicted in the European court of insulting religion by calling the Prophet Mohammed a paedophile.

If she had been deliberately inciting hatred of Muslims it would be a different matter but she wasn't. She was attacking the basis of the religion by suggesting that Muhammad was, like all so-called prophets and messiahs, just another ordinary flawed man. How can you question any religion if you are forced to treat the founders or tenets of it with the same respect that its followers have?

The Irish have taken a step forward towards rescinding prosecution for blasphemy laws and the EU court has just taken us all backwards by effectively reimposing them.

[Cirrus]

Defaming the Prophet Muhammad “goes beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate" and "could stir up prejudice and put at risk religious peace” and thus exceeds the permissible limits of freedom of expression

I'm not sure what more needs to be said.

[NotAllThere]

The Irish have taken a step forward towards rescinding prosecution for blasphemy laws and the EU court has just taken us all backwards by effectively reimposing them.

Couple of things. The ECHR is not an EU court. It is the court set up by the 40+ signatories to the European Convention of Human Rights.

The ruling is that the woman's prosecution and conviction in the Austrian courts, under Austrian law, did not violate her Human Right to freedom of expression. A subtle but important distinction. Austria's blasphemy law, as applied in this case, doesn't violate article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. It's only Austria's blasphemy law that has been tested in this way.

Now the Irish have voted (quite rightly in my opinion) to rescind their blasphemy laws there is nothing to stop them for claiming, for example, that Mo's marriage to a 6 or 7 year old girl, and the consumation of that marriage when she was 9 or 10 years old indicates that Mo was a paedophile.

If making that statement in the UK was not illegal last week, it's not illegal now.
Conversely, if it is illegal to make that statement in the UK, that doesn't mean that the UK law doesn't violate article 10.

But I do think the court's statement as quoted, is dangerously silly - and a step in the wrong direction. Even if their ruling was correct under the law.

[tazdevil]

Defaming the Prophet Muhammad “goes beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate" and "could stir up prejudice and put at risk religious peace” and thus exceeds the permissible limits of freedom of expression

I'm not sure what more needs to be said.

So one can't attack the basis of religion because there's someone out there that'll get upset? So are we to be fair here and prosecute all preachers for undermining the basis of religions other than their own? Are all opinions to be banned from public utterance because all opinion goes against someone or something and has the potential to cause upset and risk the peace? We'll end up banning freedom of expression itself.

[DimPrawn]

Since Brexit is practically a religion, I hope the Brexiters are protected from persecution by Remainers, and the act of criticising Brexit, which might stir up division and violence, is outlawed.

[NotAllThere]

So one can't attack the basis of religion because there's someone out there that'll get upset

Since Brexit is practically a religion, I hope the Brexiters are protected from persecution by Remainers, and the act of criticising Brexit, which might stir up division and violence, is outlawed.

So far, only in Austria and only in the specific circumstances of the case.

So far as I'm aware the blasphemy laws in the UK were abolished about ten years ago? So go ahead and blaspheme to your heart's content. Just make sure it isn't hate speech, of course...

[shaunbhoy]

So go ahead and blaspheme to your heart's content. Just make sure it isn't hate speech, of course...

Oh fook off you patronising twunt!!

[Paddy]

Two related news items:

Irish voters have overwhelmingly supported the proposal to remove the prohibition on blasphemy from the Constitution.

In other news a woman has been convicted in the European court of insulting religion by calling the Prophet Mohammed a paedophile.

If she had been deliberately inciting hatred of Muslims it would be a different matter but she wasn't. She was attacking the basis of the religion by suggesting that Muhammad was, like all so-called prophets and messiahs, just another ordinary flawed man. How can you question any religion if you are forced to treat the founders or tenets of it with the same respect that its followers have?

The Irish have taken a step forward towards rescinding prosecution for blasphemy laws and the EU court has just taken us all backwards by effectively reimposing them.

Couple of things. The ECHR is not an EU court. It is the court set up by the 40+ signatories to the European Convention of Human Rights.

The ruling is that the woman's prosecution and conviction in the Austrian courts, under Austrian law, did not violate her Human Right to freedom of expression. A subtle but important distinction. Austria's blasphemy law, as applied in this case, doesn't violate article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. It's only Austria's blasphemy law that has been tested in this way.

Now the Irish have voted (quite rightly in my opinion) to rescind their blasphemy laws there is nothing to stop them for claiming, for example, that Mo's marriage to a 6 or 7 year old girl, and the consumation of that marriage when she was 9 or 10 years old indicates that Mo was a paedophile.

If making that statement in the UK was not illegal last week, it's not illegal now.
Conversely, if it is illegal to make that statement in the UK, that doesn't mean that the UK law doesn't violate article 10.

But I do think the court's statement as quoted, is dangerously silly - and a step in the wrong direction. Even if their ruling was correct under the law.

So the upshot is that the EU and the ECtHR are not overriding the diverse laws of individual countries. This is contrary to the claims of those who are anti-EU. Furthermore, the ruling by the ECtHR is in line with previous judgements.

[xoggoth]

The ECHR is not an EU court. It is the court set up by the 40+ signatories to the European Convention of Human Rights

The use of "EU" was technically incorrect as the ECHR was set up long before the EU and is an agreement between many countries but, looking at all the convoluted politics behind it, the distinction is not so black and white. The Lisbon treaty requires the EU to sign up to it and no countries have entered the EU without signing up to it. More relevant to the UK, the EU has blocked any idea of us leaving it.

Theresa May bows to EU by keeping UK in human rights convention after Brexit, enraging Tory right | The Independent

So the upshot is that ... the ECtHR are not overriding the diverse laws of individual countries.

Again true. Admittedly there seems a bit of a contradiction here, I want the UK to have control of its own laws but am objecting to the EHCR not imposing on another nation. But what purpose has the EHCR ruling achieved here apart from adding enormous costs to the dispute?

My main problem with the EHCR is that the UK, as an advanced and fairly liberal nation, is perfectly capable of making its own reasonable laws. All for human rights but it's idiotic when one person's rights trump everyone else's, when those who present a risk to, or a burden on, British citizens are allowed to stay in the UK for example. I agree with TM as here:

UK must leave European convention on human rights, says Theresa May | Politics | The Guardian

[Old Greg]

The European Court [sic] does not have the power to convict anyone.