|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Sat 27 Oct 14:12
my understanding is that we (and i think mainland europe) don't have freedom of speech...
we have freedom of expression, such as the right to hold our own views/thoughts etc but we do not have freedom of speech, i.e. the right to say what we want.
in practice, this means we can generally can say what we want within certain confines.
the only place i can think of that has freedom of speech is USA, where they can say what they want regardless of any hurt or offence caused.
so whilst i might think islam is a backward religion, it's only in america where i would be legally allowed to openly state those views regardless of any hurt/insult felt by those who chose to follow that religion
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sat 27 Oct 14:27
That's right DBP.The freedom of opinion and expression.This woman should have been covered under both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: red-star-par
Date: Sat 27 Oct 14:36
Everyone should have the right to say whatever they want
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Sat 27 Oct 15:00
Anyone who lets their feelings prevent free speech has no right living in a democracy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: david9640
Date: Sat 27 Oct 18:07
I don't think the person who wrote that article had actually read the case. This was nothing to do with offence or feelings, it was about incitement of religious hatred.
“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.” [ECHR]
"The Court reiterates that a religious group must tolerate the denial by others of their religious beliefs and even the propagation by others of doctrines hostile to their faith, as long as the statements at issue do not incite hatred or religious intolerance. Article 188 of the Criminal Code in fact does not incriminate all behaviour that is likely to hurt religious feelings or amounts to blasphemy..." [The ECtHR's judgment http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-187188)]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sat 27 Oct 18:34
That is frightening standard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Sat 27 Oct 18:35
no think you miss my point... there is a difference between freedom of expression and free speech.
in america, you have free speech so i can make statements about race and religion that may incite hatred etc - we don't
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sat 27 Oct 18:41
Article 10 says you have freedom of opinion.She expressed her thoughts and was told she couldn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Sat 27 Oct 19:07
Seems from the article that she was mounting a sustained attack on Islam. On Mohamed in particular. Interesting to note it said "misrepresented as being underage...."
Was sh 9 yrs old or not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: david9640
Date: Sat 27 Oct 19:24
"Article 10 says you have freedom of opinion"
Yes, but it also says that the "exercise of these freedoms....may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary"
It was also clear from the quote from the judgment above that this is not about her freedom to express herself - she is perfectly entitled to say that Mohammad was a pedophile. What she was arrested for, was incitement of religious hatred - she organised 'seminars' masquerading as educational, to 'teach' people about Islam, when really it was nothing more than a far right rally designed to spur up hatred of Islam. She wasn't arrested for just saying Mohammad was a pedophile.
Freedom of speech is a qualified right. If you believe that no-one should be allowed to promote ISIS or other extreme ideologies, then you believe exactly that. What was ruled was that in a democratic society it is legitimate to criminalise incitement in some cases - which is exactly what the Austrian legislation did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Sat 27 Oct 22:40
So she really didn't have any freedom at all,which is what it basically amounts to.
When the right to criticise or shed any light on a subject,democracy dies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Sat 27 Oct 23:39
Quote:
PARrot, Sat 27 Oct 19:07
eems from the article that she was mounting a sustained attack on Islam. On Mohamed in particular. Interesting to note it said "misrepresented as being underage...."
Was sh 9 yrs old or not?
Aisha was born in the year 613AD. She was married to Mo in 620AD. You do the maths.
Mo was born in 570, so was 50 when he married her.
Post Edited (Sat 27 Oct 23:41)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Sun 28 Oct 00:06
Quote:
sadindiefreak, Sat 27 Oct 23:47
This may also be of use PARrot.
https://www.skeptical-science.com/religion/mohammed-marry-6-year-age-50/
I read an apologetic today which tried to justify it by saying it was the norm in the day. He said it was ok because she had reached puberty at 9 and .... you know its not even worth continuing. Sick. Anyone that tries to justify it should be put on the register if they cant see what's wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
