European Court of Human Rights: Insulting Muhammad not “free speech”

Judgement from the European Court of Human Rights:

Infidels must not be allowed to “stir up prejudice and putting at risk religious peace.”

Needless to mention that the communist clowns who infest this deplorable “European Court of Human Rights” are not just clueless about Islam, but also wilfully ignorant about the disaster they & likeminded fools have created for us.

Obama future “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”– Barry Soetoro aka Hussein Obama.

By Robert Spencer

This is clearly the case of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, who was fined and given a jail sentence for calling Muhammad a pedophile. He married a six-year-old and consummated the marriage when she was nine, but “the Austrian courts had held that ES was making value judgments partly based on untrue facts and without regard to the historical context.”

The problem that the Austrian courts overlooked here was that Muhammad is held up in Islam as the perfect example of conduct for Muslims (cf. Qur’an 33:21). Accordingly, his example does lead to pedophilia, and in any case the distinction between pedophilia and child marriage can be very fine. In Afghanistan virtually all girls above third-grade age are married, and because of Muhammad, but the Austrian court would have us believe either that there is no pedophilia in these child marriages, or that they have nothing to do with Muhammad, both of which could be proven false readily.

And as for “untrue facts,” the hadith collection that Muslims consider most reliable, Sahih Bukhari, affirms more than once that Aisha was nine at the time of the consummation of the marriage.

Finally, would the European Court of Human Rights rule that someone deserved a fine and imprisonment for criticizing Jesus? The case wouldn’t even come to them.

This is an important step toward the imposition of Sharia in Europe, as it is a tacit acceptance of Sharia blasphemy restrictions on criticizing Muhammad.

“Insulting Prophet Muhammad not ‘free speech,’ ECtHR rules,” Daily Sabah, October 25, 2018:

The European Court of Human Rights ruled Thursday that an Austrian woman’s criminal conviction and fine for her statements accusing the Prophet Muhammad of pedophilia did not breach her right to free speech.

The woman, named only as ES by the court, had held seminars on Islam in 2008 and 2009 for the far-right Freedom Party (FPO) where she discussed the prophet’s marriage to his wife Aisha, a child at the time, and implied that he was a pedophile.

An Austrian court convicted her of disparaging religious doctrines in 2011 and fined her 480 euros (548 dollars), a judgment that was upheld on two appeals.

Stating that the court had found that “the applicant’s statements had been likely to arouse justified indignation in Muslims” and “amounted to a generalization without factual basis”, the ECtHR said that the woman’s comments could not be covered by the freedom of expression.

ES’ statements “were not phrased in a neutral manner aimed at being an objective contribution to a public debate concerning child marriages,” the ECHR held, adding that the moderate fine imposed on her could not be considered disproportionate.

The Austrian courts had drawn a distinction between pedophilia and child marriage, which was also a common practice historically in European ruling families.

The ECtHR also underlined that it classified the ‘impugned’ statements as “an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam, which was capable of stirring up prejudice and putting at risk religious peace.”

It noted that the Austrian courts had held that ES was making value judgments partly based on untrue facts and without regard to the historical context….

Some informed comments:

Instead of upholding human rights this court has just trampled all over the basic human right of freedom of speech. It’s simply incredible. What this court has said is that violence and threats of violence take priority over basic human rights. The court may as well dissolve itself right now because it has made itself completely irrelevant.

What’s the fine for claiming that Muhammad split the moon, and would the ECHR back the court that imposes it? Would making such a claim be an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam, would it be capable of stirring up prejudice and against whom, and what religious peace might it put at risk?

What’s the fine for claiming that Muhammad went to Heaven on a flying horse, and would the ECHR back the court that imposes it? Would making such a claim be an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam, would it be capable of stirring up prejudice and against whom, and what religious peace might it put at risk?

What’s the fine for claiming that Muhammad recommended dipping a fly in your tea, and would the ECHR back the court that imposes it? Would making such a claim be an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam, would it be capable of stirring up prejudice and against whom, and what religious peace might it put at risk?

What’s the fine for claiming that Muhammad first tried his luck with the Jews (who saw right through him), and would the ECHR back the court that imposes it? Would making such a claim be an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam, would it be capable of stirring up prejudice and against whom, and what religious peace might it put at risk?

Those courts are going to get very very busy. Those judges are going to get very very dodgy. For a start, just think of all the books they’re now going to have to order burnt. Once you make your pact with Islam, you are quickly ensnared by its iniquities and must then forever cover your shame with further iniquities of your own, all the while fattening a laughing Islam.

What about insulting Jesus or Noah or Abraham or Moses? OK to insult Joseph Smith or Brigham Young? How about Buddha? Yes, who can be insulted and who can’t be? It’s a puzzlement, no? Or is it the case that it is only matters Islamic that cannot be subject to insult?

This is what happens when you make a distinction between free speech and hate speech. It gets all very confusing and stupid, replete often times with double standards, and the loser in it all is free speech. A once free Western Europe is rapidly becoming free no more. This is not just pathetic but tragic.

Muhammad was a terrorist: “I have been made victorious [by Allah] with terror.” The true insult is digging your head in the sand and expecting everyone else to do the same.

2 thoughts on “European Court of Human Rights: Insulting Muhammad not “free speech””

  1. Sorry – I beg to differ …
    (You imbue these suicidal self -haters with a naivety they do not possess) !!!

    Needless to mention that the communist clowns who infest this deplorable “European Court of Human Rights” are not just clueless [KNOW FULL WELL – ALL] about Islam, but [ARE] also wilfull y ignorant about the disaster they & likeminded fools [TRAITORS & CRIMINALS] have [KNOWINGLY] created for us.” [sic]

  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.

Comments are closed.