ECHR rules that defamation of Mohammed doesn't count as free expression

[Commers]

Muslims do tend to have Islam in common, though. You perhaps aren't aware surveys have shown only 18% of Muslims in Britain believe Homosexuality should be legal. About half think gay people shouldn't be allowed to be teachers. And that's British muslims who are much more liberal than those arriving from most other Islamic countries. Point stands whether you like the conclusion or not.

But what does this really mean?

Was it a pollster ringing up random Muslims asking 'do you think homosexuality should be illegal?' and the respondent answering, 'yes every fibre of my being craves for it, and every one of my waking moments is devoted to getting it criminalised'?

Or was it more like 'Never really thought about it much, yes I suppose so, I really have to go now, I'm in the middle of doing tea and the kids are acting up'.

Because having worked in opinion polling and market research I can tell you it's far from an exact science and most people will tell you the first things that come into their heads, and it's not like Muslims have a monopoly on ultra reactionary attitudes to LGBT rights issues.

You're posting this on a story about someone being convicted for stating the (historically supported) fact that Mohammed married a six year old girl? You talk about the security of rights of individuals when we're discussing someone being punished for speaking the truth? Britain doesn't have a solid constitution. In the USA we see constitutional rights under attack on issues that affect far greater percentages of the population than comprises gay and lesbian people; and their Constitution is both legally and socially far more secure than an act that came in around 1998 and was already almost repealed once. Also, you may want to read up on your human rights act as the highest authority specified in it is the ECHR. The same body that has just supported suppression of Free Speech.

As I understand it she specifically referred to Mohammed as a paedophile, suggesting that his general sexual preference was for pre-pubescent children. Yet it's not like early age marriages were unknown of in those times. These marriages were normally not consummated until puberty - the sole purpose of the marriage often being to continue a family and keep property and status amongst the ruling classes. Did you ever see the Blackadder I episode where his father King Richard arranged for Edmund to marry an 8 year old princess to secure an alliance with Hungary? Similary Mohammed was just following the Bedouin tribal customs of the time. This offends our modern sensibilities but he was not necessarily a paedophile, though people who want to have a go at Islam like to say so, which isn't a legitimate exercise of free speech - it's an attempt to slur present day followers of Islam. People have a right to follow their religion in peace.

 

[233]

hopefully give it another thousand years we'll be past all this belief nonesense.


either that or the dominant religion on the planet will worship wizards and believe in a magical kingdom called hogwarts its in a series of holy books so it must be true

 

[dowie]

As I understand it she specifically referred to Mohammed as a paedophile, suggesting that his general sexual preference was for pre-pubescent children.

The report is available to read, you can go and see what she said. She asked what we'd call Mohammed today and suggested a paedophile. She's correct, perhaps not in a strict technical sense but in society in general, in terms of the common use of the word we'd call someone who ****ed a 9/10 year old a paedo. The fact they also ****ed adult women too doesn't really matter.

Similary Mohammed was just following the Bedouin tribal customs of the time. This offends our modern sensibilities but he was not necessarily a paedophile, though people who want to have a go at Islam like to say so, which isn't a legitimate exercise of free speech - it's an attempt to slur present day followers of Islam. People have a right to follow their religion in peace.

This is a freedom of speech issue, it is really silly to deny otherwise. It has nothing to do with any slurs relating to the present day followers of Islam. The only person being potentially insulted here is a dead warlord who lived many centuries ago and apparently ****ed a 9/10 year old. That some other people think some magical sky pixie decided he was special and talked to him shouldn't be a reason not to insult him. I mean that is what the ruling comes down to - if anything the ruling is the insulting thing for the followers of Islam as it is essentially saying they're so stupid and so hypersensitive/insecure with regards to their religion that any perceived insult to it can "disturb the religious peace". I'd find that rather patronising if I were a muslim as if I genuinely had faith that it was correct then I'd not need to be insecure about any criticism or perceived insults.

 

[ChrisJSY]

People have a right to follow their religion in peace.

Religions inherently do not understand the meaning of peace, or how to provide it to others.
They are incredibly tribalistic in nature at times and continue to be the biggest issue related to global stability.

So yes, they do have a right but that has nothing to do with it.

 

[Hotwired]

The report is available to read, you can go and see what she said. She asked what we'd call Mohammed today and suggested a paedophile. She's correct, perhaps not in a strict technical sense but in society in general, in terms of the common use of the word we'd call someone who ****ed a 9/10 year old a paedo. The fact they also ****ed adult women too doesn't really matter.

This is a freedom of speech issue, it is really silly to deny otherwise. It has nothing to do with any slurs relating to the present day followers of Islam. The only person being potentially insulted here is a dead warlord who lived many centuries ago and apparently ****ed a 9/10 year old. That some other people think some magical sky pixie decided he was special and talked to him shouldn't be a reason not to insult him. I mean that is what the ruling comes down to - if anything the ruling is the insulting thing for the followers of Islam as it is essentially saying they're so stupid and so hypersensitive/insecure with regards to their religion that any perceived insult to it can "disturb the religious peace". I'd find that rather patronising if I were a muslim as if I genuinely had faith that it was correct then I'd not need to be insecure about any criticism or perceived insults.

With one half of your brain you realise that paedophile is a broad modern slur that smears everyone associated with it. To the point where paedophiles with no crime to their name would rather live with their issues in silence than seek help.

And with the other half of your brain you declare it as being too sensitive and insecure if you defend against such a slur on the religion you follow.

The disassociation between those two thoughts is apparent.

E.S. was asked to defend her position and failed to do it twice. There is no such thing as free speech here or in the country in question so if you are incapable of getting legal advice before baiting the group you dislike then you shouldn't get into politics.

She could have baited Muslims, encouraged anti-Islamic feeling and done so completely legally if she had done her research properly. Her incompetence in checking the laws of her area is why she ended up in court and lost.

We have successful religious and anti-religion agitators in this country and what they have in common is using vastly more careful language than their followers and getting legal advice.

 

[dowie]

With one half of your brain you realise that paedophile is a broad modern slur that smears everyone associated with it. To the point where paedophiles with no crime to their name would rather live with their issues in silence than seek help.

And with the other half of your brain you declare it as being too sensitive and insecure if you defend against such a slur on the religion you follow.

The disassociation between those two thoughts is apparent.

I think you're perhaps projecting a bit... I'll leave your own issues with your brain etc.. to you.

You've ended up with essentially a straw man argument there, try to stick to what I've actually posted or ask clarification instead of engaging in rather unhelpful nonsense along this "one half of your brain...". I've not said that defending against a slur on a religion is being too sensitive and insecure. I'm referring to concerns re: disturbing the religious peace.

Yes paedophile is insulting in a modern context, though it is also quite rightly used in this context. She is quite correct in asserting that the answer to the question of what we'd call someone today who had sex with a 9/10 year old is a paedophile.

Pointing out this facile argument that technically paedophiles only have an interest in children and mohammed married other adult women etc.. doesn't change the truth of that statement.

E.S. was asked to defend her position and failed to do it twice. There is no such thing as free speech here or in the country in question so if you are incapable of getting legal advice before baiting the group you dislike then you shouldn't get into politics.

She could have baited Muslims, encouraged anti-Islamic feeling and done so completely legally if she had done her research properly. Her incompetence in checking the laws of her area is why she ended up in court and lost.

Failed to in the eyes of a court that has made a rather dubious ruling. This has little to do with your perception of her incompetence, you don't know that she isn't aware of Austria's dubious laws in this area, perhaps she disagrees with them and thus is perfectly willing to fight the case in the ECHR. It is frankly rather ridiculous that they even have a law covering this these days in the first place especially given previous guidance on blasphemy laws.

As for no such thing as freedom of speech, that isn't true, it is covered under Article 10 of the European convention of human rights. Granted it isn't as well protected as say the freedom of speech guaranteed to Americans under the US constitution but it certainly does exist and it is rather silly to claim otherwise.

We have successful religious and anti-religion agitators in this country and what they have in common is using vastly more careful language than their followers and getting legal advice.

In this country she'd what she did wouldn't have constituted an offence in the first place.

 

[Hotwired]

Well I disagree with your viewpoints.

But there's nothing new coming out of this circular pattern.

E.S. was asked to defend her position and failed to do it twice. There is no such thing as free speech here or in the country in question so if you are incapable of getting legal advice before baiting the group you dislike then you shouldn't get into politics.

She could have baited Muslims, encouraged anti-Islamic feeling and done so completely legally if she had done her research properly. Her incompetence in checking the laws of her area is why she ended up in court and lost.

We have successful religious and anti-religion agitators in this country and what they have in common is using vastly more careful language than their followers and getting legal advice.

As for no such thing as freedom of speech, that isn't true, it is covered under Article 10 of the European convention of human rights. Granted it isn't as well protected as say the freedom of speech guaranteed to Americans under the US constitution but it certainly does exist and it is rather silly to claim otherwise.

It was silly to think you had a point here. I mentioned a requirement for legal advice multiple times for good reason.

1) Free speech exactly as I said it has a lack of restrictions. You've brought up what we actually have which is exactly not that.
2) You've named the article which specifies categories of speech which speakers can be punished for.

It is entirely legal to punish speech to prevent disorder and protect the reputation and rights of others. As upheld in this case.

 

[h4rm0ny]

But what does this really mean?

Was it a pollster ringing up random Muslims asking 'do you think homosexuality should be illegal?' and the respondent answering, 'yes every fibre of my being craves for it, and every one of my waking moments is devoted to getting it criminalised'?

Or was it more like 'Never really thought about it much, yes I suppose so, I really have to go now, I'm in the middle of doing tea and the kids are acting up'.

You very much are in the mindset of trying to prove what you want to believe, aren't you? It was a reputable polling company using recognized methods. Not even the Guardian was able to put a positive spin on the results, though they tried:

ICM conducted face-to-face, at-home interviews with a representative sample of 1,000 Muslims across the UK between 25 April and 31 May 2015. A control sample of 1,008 people representative of the country as a whole were interviewed over the phone to provide a comparison.
The polling was commissioned by Channel 4 for a documentary, What British Muslims Really Think, which is due to be broadcast on Wednesday presented by Phillips.

You realise of course that you could have easily looked for this yourself rather than assuming a default inline with what you want and insinuating I'm making stuff up. Also, if you're even vaguely aware of the politics of Islam in this country, how had you not heard about this survey?

and it's not like Muslims have a monopoly on ultra reactionary attitudes to LGBT rights issues.

Who said they did? I said that as a demographic they are overwhelmingly bigoted against homosexuals. And they are by FAR the largest such demographic. You can't contest that no matter how much you would like to. And I don't know why you would.

'yes every fibre of my being craves for it, and every one of my waking moments is devoted to getting it criminalised'?

Go back and read the original post you were replying to. My point is that you have two broad groups of Muslims. The radicals who believe in direct action to accomplish their goals such as eliminating gay people or bringing about Sharia law. And the more numerous non-Radicals who believe these things but are not about to break laws or take direct action to accomplish it. My point, very, very clearly stated so I'm not sure how you missed it, is that as the number of the latter increases they get the power to exert through vote and social influence to bring about what these things without being radicals. Your exaggerated strawman about "every waking moment" is not nor ever was the demographic I'm talking about. My argument - which is very straight-forward and logical - pertains to Muslims as a whole.

As I understand it she specifically referred to Mohammed as a paedophile, suggesting that his general sexual preference was for pre-pubescent children. Yet it's not like early age marriages were unknown of in those times. These marriages were normally not consummated until puberty - the sole purpose of the marriage often being to continue a family and keep property and status amongst the ruling classes. Did you ever see the Blackadder I episode where his father King Richard arranged for Edmund to marry an 8 year old princess to secure an alliance with Hungary? Similary Mohammed was just following the Bedouin tribal customs of the time. This offends our modern sensibilities but he was not necessarily a paedophile, though people who want to have a go at Islam like to say so, which isn't a legitimate exercise of free speech - it's an attempt to slur present day followers of Islam. People have a right to follow their religion in peace.

I'm pretty certain Blackadder was mocking the idea of marrying an 8 year old, not holding him up as an example of the perfect man as Mohammed is under Islam. And let me remind you that Mohammed to the best of our knowledge CONSUMATED that relationship. I reject entirely your cultural relativism crap to downplay paedophilia as 'it was different back then' or 'that was normal for Bedouins'. Child rape is child rape. People who try to water that down disgust me. Especially if it's because they don't want to offend others. If you're sexually aroused by a nine year old, if you go on and have sex with that nine year old, you're a paedophile. Or do you think if a paedophile also has sex with an adult that somehow makes them not one. Scratch that - your talk of "general sexual preference" shows that's exactly how you're thinking. You've argued that if someone's general sexual preference isn't towards prepubescents and the prepubescents are only an exception, that's not paedophilia. Re-read what you're actually saying in your attempts to defend this ruling and then have a think about whether you should be ashamed to have opened your mouth. Offends our modern sensibilities? Yes, it ******* does and I'm glad it does.

As to "not a legitimate exercise of free speech"? Of course it is. That's what Free Speech is - it's not "speech is okay unless someone doesn't like it". If you believe someone had sex with a nine year old girl (as is the common belief of Muslims and detailed in religious texts they use), and you hold that person up as being a perfect example to humanity (as is the common belief of Muslims), damn right that's open to criticism.

You've gone beyond ignorance into outright condoning of child rape. And if you're inclined to claim you haven't, have another little read of what you wrote.

 

[h4rm0ny]

She could have baited Muslims, encouraged anti-Islamic feeling and done so completely legally if she had done her research properly. Her incompetence in checking the laws of her area is why she ended up in court and lost.
We have successful religious and anti-religion agitators in this country and what they have in common is using vastly more careful language than their followers and getting legal advice.

It is entirely legal to punish speech to prevent disorder and protect the reputation and rights of others. As upheld in this case.

These are rather odd views to me. They appear to be constructed counter-arguments against the idea that what she did was legal. And placing of blame for the consequences on her because she didn't anticipate and voice her criticism is a more legalistic and ambiguous way. That may or may not be so (the legality is debatable) but rather misses what most of our objections actually are, which is that laws and courts preventing her saying a true thing because some Muslims don't like it, is wrong and is dangerous.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Yes paedophile is insulting in a modern context, though it is also quite rightly used in this context. She is quite correct in asserting that the answer to the question of what we'd call someone today who had sex with a 9/10 year old is a paedophile. Pointing out this facile argument that technically paedophiles only have an interest in children and mohammed married other adult women etc.. doesn't change the truth of that statement.

You are correct that paedophilia is primary or exclusive attraction to prepubescents. (And I agree with your post). However, I suspect that the same people defending the punishment on her for saying paedophile would be defending just the same if she'd said "today we'd call Mohammed a child molester". Frankly, given child molestation is actually acting on the desire and therefore worse than simply being prone to the desire, I'd imagine the offence would even be worse. And I strongly suspect the court would still have found her guilty. They explicitly give lack of sensitivity and "context" as reasons for supporting the ruling. It's not about the precise wording, it's about placating objecting Muslims.

 

[The Running Man]

However often "paedophiles " they catch on these shows are married to older women and thus can't solely be attracted to younger girls and therefore are being slandered as paedophiles .

 

[Commers]

As to "not a legitimate exercise of free speech"? Of course it is. That's what Free Speech is - it's not "speech is okay unless someone doesn't like it". If you believe someone had sex with a nine year old girl (as is the common belief of Muslims and detailed in religious texts they use), and you hold that person up as being a perfect example to humanity (as is the common belief of Muslims), damn right that's open to criticism.

If Islam holds Mohammed to be a perfect example to humanity then it's not because of Bedouin cultural practices that long pre-existed Islam - it's because he is regarded as the most servile and determined believer in Allah. Less a perfect human, more a perfect Muslim.

The context of any free speech should always be taken into account - Muslims don't deny or attempt to conceal that some hadiths refer to Mohammed having sex with a 9 year old, just as Jews don't deny that back in ancient Israelite times Isaac married Rebecca when she was 3, and Christian historians suggest that Mary was reputed to have given birth to Jesus at around 15. But far right activists saying 'Mohammed was a paedo', etc isn't legitimate debate or criticism, it's an attempt to incite.

You've gone beyond ignorance into outright condoning of child rape. And if you're inclined to claim you haven't, have another little read of what you wrote.

I'm sorry you've read it that way. I do not think we can ignore cultural relativism - for example in the 1800s the age of consent in Britain and the US was 10.

 

[h4rm0ny]

If Islam holds Mohammed to be a perfect example to humanity then it's not because of Bedouin cultural practices that long pre-existed Islam - it's because he is regarded as the most servile and determined believer in Allah. Less a perfect human, more a perfect Muslim.

Your ignorance is really breathtaking. Can you tell me, without hitting a search engine, what the Sunnah is? No, didn't think so. Yes, Mohammed, "Messenger of God", "Final Prophet", "Holder of All Virtues" and the person who's words and deeds are explicitly held up as a model for all others to follow, is considered the perfect example. How can you possibly think otherwise? Have you ever had ANY Muslim friends? Apparently not. Where you get this crap I don't know. Seems to me you just invent whatever sounds like a good counter-argument to you and assume that's what actually is. Maybe step out of Cumbria once in a while, head over to Bradford for a day out and talk to some actual Muslims before spouting off. Or are you about to spin a Muslim you once worked with briefly as "I have Muslim friends".

The context of any free speech should always be taken into account - Muslims don't deny or attempt to conceal that some hadiths refer to Mohammed having sex with a 9 year old, just as Jews don't deny that back in ancient Israelite times Isaac married Rebecca when she was 3, and Christian historians suggest that Mary was reputed to have given birth to Jesus at around 15. But far right activists saying 'Mohammed was a paedo', etc isn't legitimate debate or criticism, it's an attempt to incite.

Love the way you are starting to shorten and rephrase what she said to make her sound less educated and that you think if someone is labelled Far Right, they have less of right to say something than, I presume, you think you do. How do you know someone is Far Right by the way? Oh yes, they criticise Islam. Rather tautological. Free Speech for all who wont use it. Whether or not she is "Far Right," "Far Left" or a Scientologist, does not matter to the principle of the law at stake here. Do you want a list of examples of societies that applied the law differently to people depending on who they are? I can provide you some great examples I think you might recognize.

Basically, in addition to trying to play down child molestation we can now add to your scorecard support for a discriminatory legal system.

Your Googled up references to other ages are such poor analogies that they are barely worth addressing but I will. I don't think some wild guesses about how old Mary might have been by some "Christian historians" are comparable to actual likelihood that Mohammed had sex with a nine year old (and it's a pretty desperate equating it even if Mary did exist and were 15); or suggesting that Jews regard Isaac as a model of perfect behaviour as Muslims do Mohammed. But aside from that (and the reason I actually bothered to refute such dumb points) is because I wonder what on Earth you expected my reaction to be? Did you think I'd say "Oh, I am a hypocrite, God got Mary pregnant at 15 and there's a historical reference to betrothal of a Jewish historical figure to a child as well, I am exposed!". Well no, because I'm not a devout Christian or weirdly obsessive Jewish person. You're engaging in spectacular Whataboutism that is hugely misdirected. You're trying to say "but Christianity and Judaism are also at fault - ha!". So what? What it tells me is that you don't believe us when we say why we're actually concerned. You believe we're just using these reasons as some kind of figleaf for our bigotry and you think the appropriate response is to try and attack "our side" (whatever you imagine that is). No, we actually mean what we say - we believe Freedom of Speech is important. And we are concerned by groups of people holding up a child molester as an example of perfect behaviour who can do no wrong. But you don't understand that we actually mean those things because Free Speech isn't important to you (you want it denied to your opponents) and because you believe whether or not something is okay is relative and determined by the historical culture. Not by the fact that it's rape of a child.

Until you understand that, you wont understand us. You will just continue to make arguments based on the idea that everyone who doesn't agree with you is a bigot and is just hiding it.

I'm sorry you've read it that way. I do not think we can ignore cultural relativism - for example in the 1800s the age of consent in Britain and the US was 10.

Case in point - do you imagine that we're okay with the above because it's "our side"? We're not okay with it which is why we changed it and today that's not allowed.

 

[dowie]

It was silly to think you had a point here. I mentioned a requirement for legal advice multiple times for good reason.

1) Free speech exactly as I said it has a lack of restrictions. You've brought up what we actually have which is exactly not that.
2) You've named the article which specifies categories of speech which speakers can be punished for.

It is entirely legal to punish speech to prevent disorder and protect the reputation and rights of others. As upheld in this case.

It was silly to think you had a point here in saying free speech doesn’t exist. Various countries have protections in place to protect free speech.

As for protecting the rights of others, that is stretching it a bit, the bloke concerned has been dead for centuries. As far as preventing disorder, this goes back to my previous point re: the court treating Muslims as so stupid and so hypersensitive/insecure with regards to their religion that any perceived insult to it can "disturb the religious peace".

Essentially they've claimed defamation on a rather dubious technicality, this excuse that because Mo shagged adult women too then it is wrong to state that he's a paedophile for shagging a 9/10 year old. The fact that you and one or two others is defending that perhaps just indicates how far gone you are in terms of being an apologist for Islam. In reality though she didn't specify any psychological claim, she simply asked what we'd call him today and she's correct in that sense as already pointed out. The second part is simply considering that muslims have potential to behave irrationally/engage in mindless violence over something like this. Frankly I don't think that the fact some people might get angry/upset over a perceived insult to their religion should be something countries prosecute over - this was a weak stance by the court and makes it look stupid internationally. As the Barrister who blogged on the case commented, other countries will now look to this case as an example that even the highest court in Europe enforces blasphemy laws - that will be great when Western Diplomats try to talk to the likes of Pakistan, Saudi etc.. over their backwards laws.

I think you're perhaps too far gone to see any sense here.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Question to those who are defending the ECHR ruling on this issue.

There are people who genuinely would like to kill me for posting that cartoon. And certainly I can and might be censored for it. Yet it harms no-one and I like it. Do you think it should be censored? Do you think I should be punished for posting it? Reprimanded? Is Free Speech less important than someone's religious beliefs?

 

[Hotwired]

These are rather odd views to me. They appear to be constructed counter-arguments against the idea that what she did was legal. And placing of blame for the consequences on her because she didn't anticipate and voice her criticism is a more legalistic and ambiguous way. That may or may not be so (the legality is debatable) but rather misses what most of our objections actually are, which is that laws and courts preventing her saying a true thing because some Muslims don't like it, is wrong and is dangerous.

Most objections I can't be bothered with. They are generic anti-islam.

It's the false claims that I can, up to a point, be bothered with.

It was silly to think you had a point here in saying free speech doesn’t exist. Various countries have protections in place to protect free speech.

As for protecting the rights of others, that is stretching it a bit, the bloke concerned has been dead for centuries. As far as preventing disorder, this goes back to my previous point re: the court treating Muslims as so stupid and so hypersensitive/insecure with regards to their religion that any perceived insult to it can "disturb the religious peace".

Essentially they've claimed defamation on a rather dubious technicality, this excuse that because Mo shagged adult women too then it is wrong to state that he's a paedophile for shagging a 9/10 year old. The fact that you and one or two others is defending that perhaps just indicates how far gone you are in terms of being an apologist for Islam. In reality though she didn't specify any psychological claim, she simply asked what we'd call him today and she's correct in that sense as already pointed out. The second part is simply considering that muslims have potential to behave irrationally/engage in mindless violence over something like this. Frankly I don't think that the fact some people might get angry/upset over a perceived insult to their religion should be something countries prosecute over - this was a weak stance by the court and makes it look stupid internationally. As the Barrister who blogged on the case commented, other countries will now look to this case as an example that even the highest court in Europe enforces blasphemy laws - that will be great when Western Diplomats try to talk to the likes of Pakistan, Saudi etc.. over their backwards laws.

I think you're perhaps too far gone to see any sense here.

Substantial arrogance @dowie.

Again you repeat the same false reply despite me very clearly describing the difference between free speech, what we have and what you claimed I said.

Then the stretching required to decide I have a pro-religious stance. At worst I object to malicious interference in the lives of others and this is not a view exclusive to religious activities.

E.S. in this case had no motive of productive debate and was incapable of agitating within the law. She gets shut down twice entirely lawfully. Bemoaning relevant law which existed before her stunt is asinine.

Yet I'm seeing you among others holding up this steaming turd of seeking to smear the living with a slur on the dead as a worthy example to defend with lashing of fearmongering that it means far more than telling someone to shut up and behave lawfully.

It is very much a good news article to see someone with a desire to encourage ill will trip over themselves.

No pedestals here for religious or anti-religious fanatics.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Most objections I can't be bothered with. They are generic anti-islam.

Pointing out that someone venerated as a perfect example is believed (by those same people) to have been a child molester may be a common criticism of Islam. I don't believe that makes it generic. Nor, more importantly, less valid a criticism. Besides, what is at issue here is not actually that criticism, but that courts are ruling that people are not allowed to make it. And that is a very dangerous and wrong thing.

 

[Destination]

I never quite understood the reticence to make images of mohammed to avoid iconography, yet call ever man child by his name as if it wasn’t the same thing under a different guise.

 

[dowie]

Substantial arrogance @dowie.

Again you repeat the same false reply despite me very clearly describing the difference between free speech, what we have and what you claimed I said.

No I just disagree with your statement, free speech does exist as already explained. It is both pointless and silly to claim otherwise or to attempt to make some non-point where you define free speech to include absolutely everything with no restrictions. It shouldn't even need to be explained that there are some limits to free speech, even in the US, it is a complete waste of time and detracts from the discussion but that is seemingly what you want to achieve.

Then the stretching required to decide I have a pro-religious stance. At worst I object to malicious interference in the lives of others and this is not a view exclusive to religious activities.

The only interference in the lives of others here is with respect to the woman being fined, which you still seem to rather foolishly support.

E.S. in this case had no motive of productive debate and was incapable of agitating within the law. She gets shut down twice entirely lawfully. Bemoaning relevant law which existed before her stunt is asinine.

You don't know that she had no motive of productive debate, you need to distinguish between someone holding a view you don't like and then making up silly assertions like that.

Yet I'm seeing you among others holding up this steaming turd of seeking to smear the living with a slur on the dead as a worthy example to defend with lashing of fearmongering that it means far more than telling someone to shut up and behave lawfully.

It is very much a good news article to see someone with a desire to encourage ill will trip over themselves.

No pedestals here for religious or anti-religious fanatics.

hmmm that's debatable, you're still defending this nonsense, shutting down criticism of religion with fines etc.. is ridiculous it is rather sad to see people so far gone that they defend it, especailly when using mental gymnastics to claim otherwise. I believe she still has a possible angle for appeal left, we'll have to see whether the ECHR can redeem itself.

 

[h4rm0ny]

I never quite understood the reticence to make images of mohammed to avoid iconography, yet call ever man child by his name as if it wasn’t the same thing under a different guise.

I believe it stems from old practices of idolatory. Much the same as Moses smashing the golden calf and such. Early Judaism competed with religious idolaters and I think (but would have to check) Mohammed did amongst the native religions in that region. Basically, it's a separation of their faith from being one of the many idol worshippers it competed with. And today, you still see Islamic fundamentalists such as ISIS or Al Quaeda smashing religious "idols". Any form of idols is forbidden. But it might also just be one of those things. I don't know. Islam is pretty inflexible because it originated in a much more modern era than other major religions and therefore has been protected by (or enslaved by) being subject to far less translation and reinterpretation. If someone said "no pictures," that sticks!