{"id":5834,"date":"2018-10-26T09:30:22","date_gmt":"2018-10-26T08:30:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.gspellchecker.com\/?p=5834"},"modified":"2018-10-26T10:09:02","modified_gmt":"2018-10-26T09:09:02","slug":"the-echr-ruling-on-defaming-muhammad-is-an-anti-muslim-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.gspellchecker.com\/2018\/10\/the-echr-ruling-on-defaming-muhammad-is-an-anti-muslim-act\/","title":{"rendered":"The ECHR Ruling On ‘Defaming’ Muhammad Is An Anti-Muslim Act"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"image\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled<\/a> that \u2018defaming’ the Prophet Muhammad \u201cgoes beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate” and “could stir up prejudice and put at risk religious peace\u201d.<\/p>\n

The ruling was passed against an Austrian national referred to as ‘E.S’ in reports. Mrs. S, born in 1971 held two seminars in 2009 entitled \u2018Basic Information on Islam\u2019.<\/p>\n

Referencing Muhammad\u2019s marriage to 6 year old<\/a> Aisha, Mrs. S was reported to have said<\/a> \u201cMuhammad liked to do it with children\u201d and \u201c… A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? \u2026 What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

This lead to a conviction and a failed appeal process<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Mrs S. was later convicted in February 2011 by the Vienna Regional Criminal Court for disparaging religious doctrines and ordered her to pay a fine of 480 euros plus legal fees.<\/p>\n

After having her case thrown out by both the Vienna Court of Appeal and Austria’s Supreme Court, the European Court of Human rights backed the courts’ decision to convict Mrs S. on Thursday.<\/p>\n

The ECHR found there had been no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The ECHR claimed this decision was made to protect \u201creligious feelings\u201d and \u201cthe legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria.\u201d They went on to add that this sort of \u201cabusive attack on the Prophet of Islam\u201d could \u201cstir up prejudice and put at risk religious peace.\u201d<\/p>\n

There are many reasons why this decision is an affront to basic human rights such as freedom of speech. However, the ECHR also seems blissfully unaware of the own goal they have scored in \u201cstirring up prejudice\u201d themselves.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s this type of special treatment afforded to Muslim \u201cfeelings\u201d that sends a clear message that Muslims are different from the rest of us. It tells people that Muslims are to be feared and cannot be expected to respond reasonably to speech they do not like. How low of an opinion must you have of Muslims to claim that \u201creligious peace<\/i><\/strong>\u201d would be placed in jeopardy to allow comments of this kind? Islamists and Jihadists share this very same mindset too, but express it in a more concise way: \u201cDon\u2019t criticise our beliefs or we will kill you\u201d.<\/p>\n

Whilst the ECHR ruling comes to us from a secular authority, the silence on this decision from prominent Muslims and groups is deafening. How many of these groups and individuals who claim to fight for \u2018human rights\u2019 will go on record to defend free speech here? How many will state in no uncertain terms that it should never be illegal to say \u2018offensive\u2019 things about Muhammad and Islam? Anything short of this moral clarity is a willingness to allow Islamic blasphemy law. And you cannot claim to be for both \u2018human rights\u2019 whilst remaining silent on the imposition of blasphemy.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the people who make these decisions do not seem to understand how counterproductive they are to their own stated goals. The moment you are unreasonably told \u201cyou cannot say that\u201d, it becomes absolutely necessary to shout precisely \u201cthat\u201d from the rooftops. Expect to hear much more \u201cMuhammad was a Paedophile\u201d rhetoric in the coming weeks, solely in response to this ruling. The ECHR, by their own logic now appear to have risked jeopardising \u2018religious peace\u2019.<\/p>\n

Speech of this kind should never lead to legal action. What the authorities should do if they have any actual interest in maintaining \u201cpeace\u201d is to enforce existing (and reasonable) laws against those who respond to words with violence. This would better serve both Muslims and non-Muslims alike.<\/p>\n

Stephen Knight is host of The #GSPodcast. You can listen to The Godless Spellchecker Podcast <\/strong><\/i><\/i>here<\/a><\/strong><\/i><\/i>, and support it by becoming a patron <\/strong><\/i><\/i>here<\/a><\/strong><\/i><\/i>.<\/strong><\/i><\/i><\/p>\n

Share This<\/h3>
  • Tweet<\/a><\/li>
  • <\/div><\/li>
  • Email<\/span><\/a><\/li>
  • Share on Tumblr<\/a><\/li>