The European Court and Islam

[Jack Hays]

This is a provocative article, and I'm more than happy to learn about nuances and details not included in it. Nonetheless . . .

In Europe, Free Speech Bows to Sharia
Andrew McCarthy, National Review

When he was 50, the prophet of Islam took as his wife Aisha, who was then six or seven. The marriage was consummated when Aisha was nine.
This is not a smear. It is an accurate account of authoritative Islamic scripture. (See, e.g., Sahih-Bukhari, Vol. 5, Book 58, Nos. 234–236.) Yet it can no longer safely be discussed in Europe, thanks to the extortionate threat of violence and intimidation — specifically, of jihadist terrorism and the Islamist grievance industry that slipstreams behind it. Under a ruling by the so-called European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), free speech has been supplanted by sharia blasphemy standards.

The case involves an Austrian woman (identified as “Mrs. S.” in court filings and believed to be Elisabeth Sabaditsch Wolff) who, in 2009, conducted two seminars entitled “Basic Information on Islam.” She included the account of Mohammed’s marriage to Aisha. Though this account is scripturally accurate, Mrs. S. was prosecuted on the rationale that her statements implied pedophilic tendencies on the part of the prophet. A fine (about $547) was imposed for disparaging religion.

Mrs. S. appealed, relying on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That provision purports to safeguard “freedom of expression,” though it works about the same way the warranty on your used car does — it sounds like you’re covered, but the fine print eviscerates your protection.

Article 10 starts out benignly enough: Europeans are free “to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.” But then comes the legalese: One’s exercise of the right to impart information, you see, “carries with it duties and responsibilities.” Consequently, what is called “freedom” is actually “subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties” that the authorities decide “are necessary in a democratic society,” including for “public safety” and for “the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others.”. . . .

 

[Beaudreaux]

This is a provocative article, and I'm more than happy to learn about nuances and details not included in it. Nonetheless . . .

In Europe, Free Speech Bows to Sharia
Andrew McCarthy, National Review

[FONT=&][FONT=&]When he was 50, the prophet of Islam took as his wife Aisha, who was then six or seven. The marriage was consummated when Aisha was nine.[/FONT]
This is not a smear. It is an accurate account of authoritative Islamic scripture. (See, e.g., Sahih-Bukhari, Vol. 5, Book 58, Nos. 234–236.) Yet it can no longer safely be discussed in Europe, thanks to the extortionate threat of violence and intimidation — specifically, of jihadist terrorism and the Islamist grievance industry that slipstreams behind it. Under a ruling by the so-called European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), free speech has been supplanted by sharia blasphemy standards.

[/FONT]The case involves an Austrian woman (identified as “Mrs. S.” in court filings and believed to be Elisabeth Sabaditsch Wolff) who, in 2009, conducted two seminars entitled “Basic Information on Islam.” She included the account of Mohammed’s marriage to Aisha. Though this account is scripturally accurate, Mrs. S. was prosecuted on the rationale that her statements implied pedophilic tendencies on the part of the prophet. A fine (about $547) was imposed for disparaging religion.

Mrs. S. appealed, relying on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That provision purports to safeguard “freedom of expression,” though it works about the same way the warranty on your used car does — it sounds like you’re covered, but the fine print eviscerates your protection.

Article 10 starts out benignly enough: Europeans are free “to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.” But then comes the legalese: One’s exercise of the right to impart information, you see, “carries with it duties and responsibilities.” Consequently, what is called “freedom” is actually “subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties” that the authorities decide “are necessary in a democratic society,” including for “public safety” and for “the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others.”. . . . [FONT=&]
[/FONT][FONT=&]
[/FONT]

I read about this last week.

The article you posted seems to cover the issue well, although I agree it can be taken as provocative, although I don't see at as such.

My summary is, I am so glad that we live in the United States where our rights are protected from this very type of tyrannical government action, by our Constitution.

 

[PeteEU]

I read this article a couple of hours ago and it is tainted with "American eyes" and ideas of freedoms that even Americans dont have.

There has never been true "freedom of expression" in any country, including the US. There has always been restrictions imposed by the law.. may it be modesty laws in the US or anti-racist laws in Europe. Basically you can say whatever you want, but there can be legal consequences for doing such things.

For example, in the UK it is illegal to expose the names and information of people on trial before said trial is over. Tommy Robertson broke that law expressing his racist feelings to the world and paid the price. Or in the US, in many places, it is illegal for women to be topless in public which should be their right of freedom of expression.. and so on and so on. Look at Elon Musk.. he just got busted for his "freedom of expression"... just saying.

Now in this case with Mohammed and his child bride, you are free to discuss it and promote it. However from what I gather from the case, this woman is racist prick who promotes hatred against Muslims. That was her motive to point out this story about Mohammed... to me that is her right to do so, but she should be aware that if someone complains about it, she has to bear the consequences of her actions. Now the state has the obligation to prevent violence as much as possible if it can and many countries have laws against racism... Lets put it this way, would there be equal outrage if it was not Islam and Muslims she was going on about, but Jews and Judaism?

But the guy who wrote the OP article points out that a king married a 12 year old.. and mentions that back in those days child mortality was sky high and people did not live very long... and that is frankly the whole point of the Mohammed story. It was normal for girls to marry and start having children as soon as they could physically. It was normal for families to sell or promise their female children to gain power in society. Girl babies were a burden for many families... and no this is not the Islamic world I am talking about, but the Christian world. Yes it also happened in the Islamic, and still happens in India to this day and other parts of the world. Maybe this Austrian woman should talk about the practices in India, rather than something that happened 1000+ years ago.. just saying.

So basically, what this Austrian woman was doing was to provoke population groups to do something out of hatred... she is no better than Trump supporters shouting "lock her up".. only real difference is that some devote Muslims would actually do something horrible about it and that is where society aka the government has to step in. Now by stepping in, I mean not only to prevent horrible actions but also lessen the provocations as much as possible so that the horrible actions dont happen.

 

[Jack Hays]

I read this article a couple of hours ago and it is tainted with "American eyes" and ideas of freedoms that even Americans dont have.

There has never been true "freedom of expression" in any country, including the US. There has always been restrictions imposed by the law.. may it be modesty laws in the US or anti-racist laws in Europe. Basically you can say whatever you want, but there can be legal consequences for doing such things.

For example, in the UK it is illegal to expose the names and information of people on trial before said trial is over. Tommy Robertson broke that law expressing his racist feelings to the world and paid the price. Or in the US, in many places, it is illegal for women to be topless in public which should be their right of freedom of expression.. and so on and so on. Look at Elon Musk.. he just got busted for his "freedom of expression"... just saying.

Now in this case with Mohammed and his child bride, you are free to discuss it and promote it. However from what I gather from the case, this woman is racist prick who promotes hatred against Muslims. That was her motive to point out this story about Mohammed... to me that is her right to do so, but she should be aware that if someone complains about it, she has to bear the consequences of her actions. Now the state has the obligation to prevent violence as much as possible if it can and many countries have laws against racism... Lets put it this way, would there be equal outrage if it was not Islam and Muslims she was going on about, but Jews and Judaism?

But the guy who wrote the OP article points out that a king married a 12 year old.. and mentions that back in those days child mortality was sky high and people did not live very long... and that is frankly the whole point of the Mohammed story. It was normal for girls to marry and start having children as soon as they could physically. It was normal for families to sell or promise their female children to gain power in society. Girl babies were a burden for many families... and no this is not the Islamic world I am talking about, but the Christian world. Yes it also happened in the Islamic, and still happens in India to this day and other parts of the world. Maybe this Austrian woman should talk about the practices in India, rather than something that happened 1000+ years ago.. just saying.

So basically, what this Austrian woman was doing was to provoke population groups to do something out of hatred... she is no better than Trump supporters shouting "lock her up".. only real difference is that some devote Muslims would actually do something horrible about it and that is where society aka the government has to step in. Now by stepping in, I mean not only to prevent horrible actions but also lessen the provocations as much as possible so that the horrible actions dont happen.

Not really on point, and the Austrian woman's motives are actually irrelevant. I don't think a "whataboutism" argument is helpful either. As for "American eyes," I'll just point out no such prosecution would stand up in the US.

 

[PeteEU]

Not really on point, and the Austrian woman's motives are actually irrelevant. I don't think a "whataboutism" argument is helpful either. As for "American eyes," I'll just point out no such prosecution would stand up in the US.

Wrong, the Austrians woman's motives are very relevant. You dont have a right to shout fire in a crowded theatre and not suffer the consequences when there is none.

As for "no such prosecution would stand up in the US".. sorry to break the bubble, but that happens all the time. This specific example most likely wont be stand, but there are plenty of other "freedom of expression" that are curtailed by US law .. just ask Janet Jackson.

 

[Chagos]

I reckon that constantly bringing up the difference in understanding (and thus handling) of free speech concept, this side and that side of the pond, really serves no purpose.

Or, if one really wants to engage in such fruitless exercises, of as little purpose as Europeans wanting to condemn US gun laws or US members wanting to impose their understanding of same to be imposed upon Europe.

We are not like they am and they is not like we is and vive la différence.

 

[Jack Hays]

Wrong, the Austrians woman's motives are very relevant. You dont have a right to shout fire in a crowded theatre and not suffer the consequences when there is none.

As for "no such prosecution would stand up in the US".. sorry to break the bubble, but that happens all the time. This specific example most likely wont be stand, but there are plenty of other "freedom of expression" that are curtailed by US law .. just ask Janet Jackson.

Jackson's fine was overturned in court.
The European case under discussion has nothing to do with the "fire in a crowded theatre" exception.

 

[Jack Hays]

I reckon that constantly bringing up the difference in understanding (and thus handling) of free speech concept, this side and that side of the pond, really serves no purpose.

Or, if one really wants to engage in such fruitless exercises, of as little purpose as Europeans wanting to condemn US gun laws or US members wanting to impose their understanding of same to be imposed upon Europe.

We are not like they am and they is not like we is and vive la différence.

That's actually the point I want to get to. If Euros are fine with this that's certainly your business and not ours.

 

[Athanasius68]

Wrong, the Austrians woman's motives are very relevant. You dont have a right to shout fire in a crowded theatre and not suffer the consequences when there is none.

As for "no such prosecution would stand up in the US".. sorry to break the bubble, but that happens all the time. This specific example most likely wont be stand, but there are plenty of other "freedom of expression" that are curtailed by US law .. just ask Janet Jackson.

But there was a fire in a theater-- a 50 year Mohammed did marry a 9 year old girl. Why should there be consequences for pointing this out?

 

[Chagos]

But there was a fire in a theater-- a 50 year Mohammed did marry a 9 year old girl. Why should there be consequences for pointing this out?

Because in Austria there is seen a difference between holding a seminary that objectively informs upon a religion (and claims precisely that objective aim for itself) and holding a seminary that aims to summarily defame a religion and all its adherents by defaming its (their) prophet.

 

[Westphalian]

The problem for Jack et al (who i will call social liberals), is that Islam is not a 'progressive' religion. Thus they are constantly left trying to reconcile their so called 'liberal values' with the defence of a deeply conservative religion which often tramples on liberal principles. It must be hard work - I feel for you guys.

And I know why Muslims are so important for liberals. It's because Muslims are the religion of choice with which to destroy Christian states and identities in the great rush to multi-culti societies full of atomised and diverse individuals capable only of consuming the products sold to them by multi-national corporates - individuals capable of consumption but incapable through atomisation of mounting any serious coherent opposition to the multi-nationals and their own governments.

 

[Bum]

This is a provocative article, and I'm more than happy to learn about nuances and details not included in it. Nonetheless . . .

In Europe, Free Speech Bows to Sharia
Andrew McCarthy, National Review

[FONT=&][FONT=&]When he was 50, the prophet of Islam took as his wife Aisha, who was then six or seven. The marriage was consummated when Aisha was nine.[/FONT]
This is not a smear. It is an accurate account of authoritative Islamic scripture. (See, e.g., Sahih-Bukhari, Vol. 5, Book 58, Nos. 234–236.) Yet it can no longer safely be discussed in Europe, thanks to the extortionate threat of violence and intimidation — specifically, of jihadist terrorism and the Islamist grievance industry that slipstreams behind it. Under a ruling by the so-called European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), free speech has been supplanted by sharia blasphemy standards.

[/FONT]The case involves an Austrian woman (identified as “Mrs. S.” in court filings and believed to be Elisabeth Sabaditsch Wolff) who, in 2009, conducted two seminars entitled “Basic Information on Islam.” She included the account of Mohammed’s marriage to Aisha. Though this account is scripturally accurate, Mrs. S. was prosecuted on the rationale that her statements implied pedophilic tendencies on the part of the prophet. A fine (about $547) was imposed for disparaging religion.

Mrs. S. appealed, relying on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That provision purports to safeguard “freedom of expression,” though it works about the same way the warranty on your used car does — it sounds like you’re covered, but the fine print eviscerates your protection.

Article 10 starts out benignly enough: Europeans are free “to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.” But then comes the legalese: One’s exercise of the right to impart information, you see, “carries with it duties and responsibilities.” Consequently, what is called “freedom” is actually “subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties” that the authorities decide “are necessary in a democratic society,” including for “public safety” and for “the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others.”. . . . [FONT=&]
[/FONT][FONT=&]
[/FONT]

oh, FFS.....putting hurt feelings before fact. :roll:

Grow some skin snowflakes....EU court of tears and hugs.

 

[Athanasius68]

Because in Austria there is seen a difference between holding a seminary that objectively informs upon a religion (and claims precisely that objective aim for itself) and holding a seminary that aims to summarily defame a religion and all its adherents by defaming its (their) prophet.

But reporting that a 50 year old man married a 9 year girl is objectively informing upon a religion.
It happenned.

 

[Chagos]

But reporting that a 50 year old man married a 9 year girl is objectively informing upon a religion.
It happenned.

You are entitled to your own opinion as much as you are entitled to derive it from your own ignorance.

In view of the latter, my being done with continuing any exchange on this topic with you.

Have a nice one.

 

[Athanasius68]

You are entitled to your own opinion as much as you are entitled to derive it from your own ignorance.

In view of the latter, my being done with continuing any exchange on this topic with you.

Have a nice one.

More free speech in action...
Is the claim of a 50 year old Mohammed marrying a 9 year girl TRUE or UNTRUE?

 

[Chagos]

Some people simply don't get when they've been dismissed.:roll:

 

[Athanasius68]

Some people simply don't get when they've been dismissed.:roll:

And others are sometimes curious of the intolerance toward others by people who voluntarily spend their time on a free speech board..

 

[Jack Hays]

Because in Austria there is seen a difference between holding a seminary that objectively informs upon a religion (and claims precisely that objective aim for itself) and holding a seminary that aims to summarily defame a religion and all its adherents by defaming its (their) prophet.

Did you perhaps intend "seminar" rather than "seminary?"

 

[Chagos]

Seeing how this is primarily about an Austrian issue, there is in the German language the term "nicht satisfaktionsfähig".

It translates most insufficiently as "unable to provide satisfaction" in the sense of that satisfaction standing for "honors of all parties served" after conclusion of duels popular in times past and serving to settle differences.

In those times both challenger and challenged were required to be "satisfaction-worthy" which in turn required them to be of equally high social standing, initially that of nobility and later of at least gentlemen status.

As such anyone of said standard accepting a challenge from anyone not fulfilling it (let alone sinking to duelling with such a person) was unthinkable and the so deluded challenger was usually dismissed or, at worst, taken care of by sending the stable master with a horse whip to him.

Where duelling has fortunately long since been outlawed as much as the social snobbery involved at the time, the term has survived into today's German in that somebody deemed unworthy of debating is often labelled as "nicht satisfaktionsfähig = not satisfaction-worthy".

Implication today being that one doesn't stoop to debating with people of inferior status, "inferior" here and today referring to obvious debating incapacity rather than lack of social status in times of old.

People who cannot understand the difference between being dismissed and not being tolerated perfectly fit the category of "nicht satisfaktionsfähig = not satisfaction-worthy" by however unwittingly confirming their status.

Subsequently it is also utterly futile to discuss with them why Sabbaditsch-Wolff does not meet the criteria of "satisfaktionsfähig" either.

 

[Chagos]

Did you perhaps intend "seminar" rather than "seminary?"

You can pick what most pleases you, even where the application of seminary to theology is often customary. It is however not exclusive to theology.

Thinking (and writing) simultaneously in two languages (three if one counts Murican:mrgreen often has its pitfalls if in one of those languages the word makes no such distinctions. That doesn't apply in this case though, seeing how Sabbaditsch-Wolff was attempting something that would fit both definitions (theological and academic, i.e. seminary and seminar) and failing equally at either.

 

[HERA the Stars]

“the right of others to have their religious feelings protected,” as well as “the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace.”

We live in confusing times, because we are trying to align our laws to feelings, objective rules applied subjectively. Basically it means our laws can do a 180 degree swing in a 24 hour period, depending on how offended someone feels. We do this across the board, with feminism, racism, gender neutral, religion....gay cakes.

Ironically we then ignore real breaches in law, like paedophiles because pointing it out is discrimination, racist or sexist (place your label here)

 

[Chagos]

Yeah, I guess laws should forever remain chiselled into the stones of thousands of years (ago) and never be aligned to nuffin since.

No longer being able to beat the bejesus out of kaffirs, no longer being able to thrash women for the sake of household peace, no longer being able to attack religions not one's own, no longer being able to discriminate on ethnic principles, that and much more all used to be permitted by law and now look at it all.

Indeed confusing to some and especially to those rudely awakened to the fact of no longer living in the 17th century.

World's going to the dogs, I tellsya.

 

[Tim the plumber]

This is a provocative article, and I'm more than happy to learn about nuances and details not included in it. Nonetheless . . .

In Europe, Free Speech Bows to Sharia
Andrew McCarthy, National Review

[FONT=&][FONT=&]When he was 50, the prophet of Islam took as his wife Aisha, who was then six or seven. The marriage was consummated when Aisha was nine.[/FONT]
This is not a smear. It is an accurate account of authoritative Islamic scripture. (See, e.g., Sahih-Bukhari, Vol. 5, Book 58, Nos. 234–236.) Yet it can no longer safely be discussed in Europe, thanks to the extortionate threat of violence and intimidation — specifically, of jihadist terrorism and the Islamist grievance industry that slipstreams behind it. Under a ruling by the so-called European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), free speech has been supplanted by sharia blasphemy standards.

[/FONT]The case involves an Austrian woman (identified as “Mrs. S.” in court filings and believed to be Elisabeth Sabaditsch Wolff) who, in 2009, conducted two seminars entitled “Basic Information on Islam.” She included the account of Mohammed’s marriage to Aisha. Though this account is scripturally accurate, Mrs. S. was prosecuted on the rationale that her statements implied pedophilic tendencies on the part of the prophet. A fine (about $547) was imposed for disparaging religion.

Mrs. S. appealed, relying on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That provision purports to safeguard “freedom of expression,” though it works about the same way the warranty on your used car does — it sounds like you’re covered, but the fine print eviscerates your protection.

Article 10 starts out benignly enough: Europeans are free “to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.” But then comes the legalese: One’s exercise of the right to impart information, you see, “carries with it duties and responsibilities.” Consequently, what is called “freedom” is actually “subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties” that the authorities decide “are necessary in a democratic society,” including for “public safety” and for “the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others.”. . . . [FONT=&]
[/FONT][FONT=&]
[/FONT]

You can understand why us Brits are leaving.

 

[Chagos]

You can understand why us Brits are leaving.

Leaving what?

The Council of Europe (founded, among others, by Winston Churchill) that established the European Court of Human Rights?

Must have missed that.

 

[HERA the Stars]

You can understand why us Brits are leaving.

I work with a couple of awesome British guys who spoke frankly with me on why they left and yes... this is exactly why