Blasphemy laws

[Bonions]

I’m not well versed in this at all but there’s been a ruling that may have free speech implications.

I’ve read on these boards how we don’t have beliefs imposed by the state and so should be free from being mandated to believe in TWAW, so will this ruling affect that?

Matthew Scott
@Barristerblog
ECtHR holds that conviction of Austrian for calling Muhammad "a paedophile" did not breach Article 10 right to freedom of expression, because it was "insults or mockery" rather than "criticism." hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-187188#

Matthew Scott
@Barristerblog
In effect giving the thumbs up to blasphemy laws in Europe.

Inciting hatred is an abuse of freedom of speech. I'm concerned about the way the far right uses inflammatory speech, and I'm not surprised that the original ruling was upheld in this case.
This is not the same as the State mandating belief. Its more like the State preventing another hate group agitating for Krystallnacht.

But Mohammed married an 8 year old. I don’t think that the use of pedophile was intended as an insult. More a statement of fact. I say this as someone who comes from a Muslim background. We all accept that marrying 8 year olds is wrong and creepy. So is killing people who refused to convert or stoning adulterers. Just like most religions there is a lot wrong with the history of Islam. It was a different time when people didnararic things. Pointing that out is not hate speech.

I find this worrying- the judgement spends a lot of time establishing whether the defendant’s statements were accurate (ie was Muhammad a paedophilic?) surely, as long as you’re not inciting discrimination or violence, you should be able to say anything you like about a religious figure, whether it’s true or not?

you should be able to say anything you like about a religious figure, whether it’s true or not?

You'd have thought... though the idea of only being able to say things about religious figures which is provably true is somewhat appealing!

Which leads us on to the question of how can we still criticise religions without being accused of picking on those that follow said religion? Can calling for, say, laws against Islsmophobia actually result in the introduction of blasphemy laws?

Sam Harris was at pains to state that any religion is a set of ideas that should be subject to criticism. Affleck saw it as nothing but Islsmophobia. This piece caused a watching Dave Rubin to leave the Left (he used to be in the Young Turks) and start the Rubin Report.

Worth a watch, if only for the uber-patient Harris trying to explain his ideas to Affleck. Some definite parallels to the current Trans debate too.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=vln9D81eO60

I've always been of the view that ideas, and and all of them, are fair game for any critique whatsoever.

People deserve respect and protection for their safety, livelihood and personal rights, but no one has a right to have others treat their opinions as beyond criticism.

As an openly religious person I am quite used to being challenged about my beliefs, and I have no problem with that whatsoever. I don't personally agree with blasphemy, and I would caution anyone against it, but my motivation in that is not to control, it is because I think blasphemy is harmful to the soul.

Having said that, that is my opinion, and what I view as blasphemy may well not be the same as what another religious believer may view as blasphemy, therefore there is absolutely no basis for a secular law against it as a concept.

What Floral said.
I think this ruling sounds quite frightening.

Every religion is a blasphemy against other religions.

Religious people should be as worried by blasphemy laws as the irreligious are.

"But Mohammed married an 8 year old. I don’t think that the use of paedophile was intended as an insult. More a statement of fact."

I'd dispute that and I'm not a muslim. It's my understanding that in the Prophet's time women were in need of protection, so either father, brother or a husband. If a female had none of those she would have been in danger. Mohammed married the child to give her that protection. Not that he needed or wanted a child for a wife.

I'm willing to be dissuaded from this point if anyone knows better.

Quite, Aspie. I've been accused of blasphemy more times than I've eaten cockles (I've eaten them three times) and I'm about as religious as it gets.

We are voting tomorrow in Ireland on whether "blasphemy" should be removed as a criminal offence. It's currently in the constitution as a criminal offence

Bitter

Read the link above. It says he had sex with a nine year old whom he married when she was six. That fact is not in dispute