Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu: “This ruling is pleasing in all its aspects”

European Court of Human Rights says defaming the Prophet Muhammad exceeds permissible limits of freedom of expression

Ex-OIC chief welcomes court ruling on defaming Prophet

“The fight against Islamophobia and our opinions we have been voicing for years have been adopted and declared by the ECHR,” he said, adding: “This ruling is pleasing in all its aspects.”

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) recently ruled that freedom of speech must be balanced with “protecting the religious feelings” of others. Hence, Europeans are no longer allowed to call Muhammad offensive names like “pedophile,” even though he had sex with a prepubescent nine-year-old girl named Aisha. David Wood discusses the issue.

Continued:

A former head of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) welcomed a European Court of Human Rights’ (ECHR) decision that penalized defaming of the Prophet Muhammed.

“The decision, which shows that disrespect, insults and detestable enmities have nothing to do with the freedom of expression or human rights, deserves admiration,” Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu told Anadolu Agency on Friday.

“The fight against Islamophobia and our opinions we have been voicing for years have been adopted and declared by the ECHR,” he said, adding: “This ruling is pleasing in all its aspects.”

Defaming the Prophet Muhammed “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, ruled the ECHR, upholding a lower court decision.

The decision by a seven-judge panel came after an Austrian national identified as Mrs. S. held two seminars in 2009, entitled “Basic Information on Islam,” in which she defamed the Prophet Muhammad’s marriage.

According to a statement released by the court on Thursday, the Vienna Regional Criminal Court found that these statements implied that Muhammad had pedophilic tendencies, and in February 2011 convicted Mrs. S. for disparaging religious doctrines.

She was fined €480 (approx. $547) and the costs of the proceedings.

The statement also added that there had been no violation of Article 10 of the European Convention ofHuman Rights, covering freedom of expression.

 

3 thoughts on “Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu: “This ruling is pleasing in all its aspects””

  1. “Exceeds the permissible limits of freedom of expression” Obviously this includes THE FU*KING TRUTH! Muhammad was a pedophile, murderer, slave owner, war monger and mad dog. This is all true and to blindly push all this under the carpet to appease muslims is delusional and dangerous.

  2. Let’s have a look at what they imply: “The Strasbourg, France-based court found that her statements describing Muhammad as a pedophile “had been likely to arouse justified indignation in Muslims” and “amounted to a generalization without factual basis.” So they’re deliberately lying about official islamic facts.

    “Such comments, the court said, are not protected by the freedom of expression provisions of Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights.”

    So: It is illegal to report the truth about criminals if it might upset other criminals.

    “The court asserted her statements “were not phrased in a neutral manner aimed at being an objective contribution to a public debate concerning child marriages.”” One must remain “neutral” towards, (i.e: not oppose) all crimes.

    “The European court classified the woman’s “impugned” statements as “an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam, which was capable of stirring up prejudice and putting at risk religious peace.””

    In asserting Muhammad was a Prophet of religious Peace, they Submit to islam.

    Conclusion: The European Court of Human Rights only supports criminals’ rights.

  3. Aan alle hypocrieten en naïevelingen .

    Stelling:

    “Vrijheid van meningsuiting”

    De vrijheid van meningsuiting heeft NIETS met de islam omgekeerd heeft de islam NIETS met de vrijheid van meningsuiting.

    Door te kijken wat iemand zegt en doet is dus direct duidelijk aan welke kant men staat.

    Dat de islam de vrijheid van meningsuiting misbruikt komt doordat de vrijheid van meningsuiting de islam NIET uitsluit. (M.a.w ook de islam mag /kan gebruik maken van de vrijheid van meningsuiting).
    Op het moment dat de islam het voor het zeggen heeft/krijgt is het echter per direct gedaan met de vrijheid van meningsuiting.

    Dat is dan weer het gevolg van de bovenstaande stelling.

    Pikant bijverschijnsel is dat als de vrijheid van meningsuiting eenmaal verdwenen is zij niet meer zal wederkeren.Denk dat veel mensen daar pas achter komen als de tijd van theedrinken voorbij is.

    Het is echter dan wel te laat.

    Stel u zelf de volgende vraag,kent u 1 islamitisch land waar men vrijheid van meningsuiting heeft,zoals wij die hier kennen…………..bespaart u de moeite……die is er niet,heeft ook nooit bestaan, zal er ook nooit komen.

    Bovenstaande Stelling kunt u ook invullen met Democratie.

    (PS: in principe zou het wel kunnen maar dan aangepast aan de wetten van deze vreedzame ideologie).

    Prettige dag verder.

Comments are closed.