EU Courts: Defaming Muhammad is not Allowed

[NightHawkeye]

From the "That's just a little bothersome", files: Defaming Muhammad does not fall under purview of free speech, European court rules | Fox News

The freedom of speech does not extend to include defaming the prophet of Islam, the European Court of Human rights ruled Thursday.

The Strasbourg-based ECHR ruled that insulting Islamic prophet Muhammad “goes beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate” and “could stir up prejudice and put at risk religious peace.”

​

 

[Rubricnigel]

From the "That's just a little bothersome", files: Defaming Muhammad does not fall under purview of free speech, European court rules | Fox News

The freedom of speech does not extend to include defaming the prophet of Islam, the European Court of Human rights ruled Thursday.

The Strasbourg-based ECHR ruled that insulting Islamic prophet Muhammad “goes beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate” and “could stir up prejudice and put at risk religious peace.”

​

Will they ban people mocking Christianity?
LoL
We all know they wont, its not the agenda. The agenda is to silence Christianity

 

[Rion]

So I guess the next step is criminalize denying the existence of muhammad or allah. If saying bad things about Islamic figures is illegal, then surely saying they don't exist must count.

 

[Rubricnigel]

So I guess the next step is criminalize denying the existence of muhammad or allah. If saying bad things about Islamic figures is illegal, then surely saying they don't exist must count.

I wonder why Christian countries, in Europe fight so hard for a religion and people their ancestors fought so hard against.
The old saying about easy times breed weak men, still holds true

 

[LostMarbels]

From the "That's just a little bothersome", files: Defaming Muhammad does not fall under purview of free speech, European court rules | Fox News

The freedom of speech does not extend to include defaming the prophet of Islam, the European Court of Human rights ruled Thursday.

The Strasbourg-based ECHR ruled that insulting Islamic prophet Muhammad “goes beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate” and “could stir up prejudice and put at risk religious peace.”

​

Been warning about this for years. They told the Queen to leave their country England years ago.

I do not recognize mohamad. I do not recognize Islam. I actively stand against this happening in America.

 

[Rubricnigel]

Been warning about this for years. They told the Queen to leave their country England years ago.

I do not recognize mohamad. I do not recognize Islam. I actively stand against this happening in America.

Its scary that the speech to criticize is being taken away. Well we all knew they didnt have real freedom of speech in most European countries anyway, but this is just nuts. Muhammed isnt a prophet
Allah isnt the God Christians worship

 

[LostMarbels]

Its scary that the speech to criticize is being taken away. Well we all knew they didnt have real freedom of speech in most European countries anyway, but this is just nuts. Muhammed isnt a prophet
Allah isnt the God Christians worship

Agin England... look at Tommy Robinson. Put in prison for this very law. He dared to expose sexual misconduct on children and rapes that were committed.

 

[Tanj]

Agin England... look at Tommy Robinson. Put in prison for this very law. He dared to expose sexual misconduct on children and rapes that were committed.

That's not what happened. He got imprisoned for using a camera in a court. Also, do try to explain how he "dared to expose" something by videoing a trial of it. I mean you get that, right? The defendants for the rapes in question were ON TRIAL. You don't get any more "exposed" than that.

 

[Bible2+]

Rubricnigel said in post #2:

Will they ban people mocking Christianity?
LoL
We all know they wont, its not the agenda. The agenda is to silence Christianity

Well said.

For "political correctness" loves Islam, but hates Biblical Christianity.

Also, there is no escaping the fact that these religions contradict each other. So one is a lie and the other is the truth.

Also, even though Islam in its present form will not (as is often claimed) be the religion of the future Antichrist during his literal 3.5-year worldwide reign (of Revelation 13:4-18), Islam could be, since the latter half of the seventh century AD, Revelation 17:10's seventh empire. The Antichrist's empire will be a different, still-future, eighth empire (Revelation 17:11).

Also, because Islam falsely claims that the anti-Gospel Koran came through the angel Gabriel, it is one fulfillment of Galatians 1:8-9 (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:14).

Islam is an anti-Gospel religion because, even though it affirms that Jesus is the Christ (Koran 4:157, Koran 5:17,75), it defames Jesus Christ by denying that He is the human/divine Son of God (Koran 9:30, Koran 4:171, Koran 5:72). And Islam defames Jesus Christ by denying that He suffered and died on the Cross for our sins (Koran 4:157) and rose physically from the dead on the third day. In order to be saved from hell, people have to believe the Gospel that Jesus is both the Christ and the human/divine Son of God (John 3:16,36; 1 John 2:23), and that He suffered and died on the Cross for our sins and rose physically from the dead on the third day (1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Luke 24:39,46-47, Matthew 20:19, Matthew 26:28).

The reason why it is necessary to believe these things to be saved from hell is because it was only as the human/divine Son of God that Jesus Christ's suffering during His Passion could satisfy God the Father's justice (Isaiah 53:11), which requires an infinite amount of human suffering for sin (Matthew 25:46).

Jesus Christ's suffering during His Passion was sufficient to forgive the sins of everyone (1 John 2:2), because Jesus is not only a human, but also God (John 1:1,14, John 10:30, John 20:28). His soul is infinite, and so the suffering of His soul (Isaiah 53:11, KJV) was infinite in amount, even though it was not infinite in duration. And so His suffering could satisfy God the Father's justice (Isaiah 53:11, KJV; 1 Peter 3:18), which requires an infinite amount of human suffering for sin (Matthew 25:46). Because humans who are not God have finite souls, in order for them to suffer an infinite amount for their sins they must suffer over an infinite duration of time (Matthew 25:46, Revelation 14:10-11, Mark 9:46).

Every human has sinned (Romans 3:23), except Jesus Christ (Hebrews 4:15b; 2 Corinthians 5:21). But because Jesus suffered for sins (1 Peter 3:18, Isaiah 53:11, KJV) an infinite amount, when elect people repent from their sins and believe in Jesus' human/divine sacrifice they can have their past sins forgiven (Romans 3:25-26, Matthew 26:28), while God the Father's justice remains fully satisfied by Jesus' suffering for their sins (Isaiah 53:11, KJV; 1 Peter 3:18).

-

One way to help Muslims understand how Jesus Christ can be God, from everlasting, is to question them about their understanding of the Muslim belief regarding the Koran. For Islam says that there was no time when the Koran did not exist in a spiritual form in heaven, that it has always coexisted with Allah as his word. So Christians can show Muslims that the Bible says that before Jesus' incarnation, there was no time when He did not exist in a spiritual form in heaven. He has always coexisted with God the Father as God the Word (John 1:1,14).

This is not to suggest that the Muslim claim regarding the Koran is true, or that the book itself is true. Indeed, again, because Islam falsely claims that the anti-Gospel Koran came through the angel Gabriel, it is one fulfillment of Galatians 1:8-9 (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:14).

 

[LostMarbels]

That's not what happened. He got imprisoned for using a camera in a court. Also, do try to explain how he "dared to expose" something by videoing a trial of it. I mean you get that, right? The defendants for the rapes in question were ON TRIAL. You don't get any more "exposed" than that.

The video was outside of the court house. And a BAN on media is just nuts in the first place.

 

[Tanj]

The video was outside of the court house.

That's not what he got done for, and regardless, I note you did not address the whole "he exposed sexual misconduct" lie.

And a BAN on media is just nuts in the first place.

People that break the law deserve to be prosecuted for it. Being in the media doesn't make you immune. No one BANNED the media, they convicted a nutjob of breaking the law. Said nutjob happened to be a reporter...of sorts.

 

[Goonie]

The video was outside of the court house. And a BAN on media is just nuts in the first place.

There are laws regarding trials, the media, and the right to a fair trial. Tommy Robinson knew this and chose to break the law anyway threatening the successful prosecution of these criminals for political gain.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I do find this sad..

First, if you can't criticize Islam you can't evangelize Muslims. Period.

At a time when your closer to Muslims than ever before and in a place where they are freer to leave their former faith behind them without being killed for it, evangelism is attacked.

Is this now a choice between following Jesus and jail in the EU? It seems so..

 

[LostMarbels]

There are laws regarding trials, the media, and the right to a fair trial. Tommy Robinson knew this and chose to break the law anyway threatening the successful prosecution of these criminals for political gain.

Keep going along with it. Good luck, and I wish you the best.

 

[LostMarbels]

I do find this sad..

First, if you can't criticize Islam you can't evangelize Muslims. Period.

At a time when your closer to Muslims than ever before and in a place where they are freer to leave their former faith behind them without being killed for it, evangelism is attacked.

Is this now a choice between following Jesus and jail in the EU? It seems so..

and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.”
—Revelation 20:4

Hope your ready.

 

[Hazelelponi]

and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.”
—Revelation 20:4

Hope your ready.

I've been ready since the day I accepted Christ. My fate is in His sovereign Hand.

I'm good with it. But I'm not in the EU, I'm in the U.S. - more freedom here for the time being.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Well, there are two ways to deal with this.

The first is not to go to Europe and criticize Islam/Mohammed.

The second is to move to Europe and become a citizen and then introduce a motion to extend the same protections for Christianity/Jesus.

And I guess there is a third, stay at home and gripe about it on the internet while reminding yourself how persecuted you are.

 

[Goonie]

Well, there are two ways to deal with this.

The first is not to go to Europe and criticize Islam/Mohammed.

The second is to move to Europe and become a citizen and then introduce a motion to extend the same protections for Christianity/Jesus.

And I guess there is a third, stay at home and gripe about it on the internet while reminding yourself how persecuted you are.

And fourthly bring A case about defaming Jesus to court, since courts can only rule on cases before them.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Will they ban people mocking Christianity?
LoL
We all know they wont, its not the agenda. The agenda is to silence Christianity

Well said.
For "political correctness" loves Islam, but hates Biblical Christianity.

Also, there is no escaping the fact that these religions contradict each other. So one is a lie and the other is the truth.

That's your opinion, not a fact. Not all of us think it has to think one or the other is true. Many of us think neither are true.


Aside from this self-imposed martyrdom (IE: we're so right and correct that everyone is out to get us), this is another one of those cases where it's "more to this story" scenario. Right wing outlets love to play this game, where they tell you facts #1 & #3, but conveniently forget to mention #2 (which is critical to the story). Much like that story where "preacher arrested for preaching the gospel" (which ended up being that he was arrested for standing in the middle of the road with a megaphone and getting in people's faces with it)...there's also more to this one.

Per Reason.com:
The court rejects the woman's "public debate" argument. E.S. claimed to be an expert on the subject of Islam. As a result, the court replies, "she had to have been aware that her statements were partly based on untrue facts and apt to arouse indignation in others." The purpose of her statements was not to contribute to a public debate, the court declares.

The ECHR acknowledges that criticizing religious groups is fair game. But "statements...based on manifestly untrue facts, that seek only to create hostility toward people of particular faiths, are not protected under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights", the judges say.


Now, to be perfectly clear, both myself, and the Reason.com article I mentioning are both on the side that says we should be able to criticize Islam in any way shape or form I deem fit provided I don't violate the rights of others. But, with that being said, that's not an excuse to intentionally be deceptive about what this court ruling actually was and the details of the case.

This woman intentionally spewed a bunch of falsehoods in order to stir up anger against a particular religious group (you know, the kind of anger that might lead to someone storming into a house of worship and shooting up the place), and that is what the court said wasn't protected.

This isn't some covert "liberal agenda" to show favoritism toward Islam while trying to attack Christianity.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

And fourthly bring A case about defaming Jesus to court, since courts can only rule on cases before them.

If only the EU could elect a ruler that could just create laws on a whim that benefits the correct people.