Campaign to repeal the blasphemy law

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

..it's relevant that the defendant in this case simply made derogatory stuff up about Muhammed, and this is what stymied her claim to be involved in criticism of Islam..

I don't think that is true, can you clarify what you mean?
If you mean that marrying a 9 year old is not technically paedophilia, then you may be right in some technical sense, but to suggest that the defendant "made stuff up" is wrong. The most you can say is that there is ambiguity in the appropriateness of one word she used, which itself was only one small element in the information package she presented. Such a tiny inaccuracy would not normally bring the law down on somebody, therefore we can safely say that the real reason for the prosecution lies elsewhere.

smacl wrote: »

The case with ES as I see it is that she's basically saying that Muslims are generally sympathetic to paedophillia by association because of this, which is a sentiment that seems to be reflected here. I think it is this that the Austrian's took exception to as a form of incitement to hatred. I think it is certainly unreasonable incitement to prejudice, and that people should be judged on their behaviour rather than what we might think they think.

Not only by association, but by imitation. The prophet Mo is considered in Islam to be "the perfect man" and all other men are expected to emulate him as far as possible.
When I say that, I am not inciting to hatred. I am pointing out a truth.


You have decided that you don't like the Austrian Freedom Party, and so you support this prosecution while pretending that you still support free speech. That position is similar to the ECHR position, but it is not a credible position to adopt.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

I don't think that is true, can you clarify what you mean?

She said that he "liked to do it with little girls", a claim for which there is precisely zero evidence. Se suggested that he had sex with other children besides Aisha; there is no basis for this. She also ignored the fact that the marriage with Aisha continued for the rest of Muhammed's life, well into Aisha's adult years. In fact she completely omitted any mention of the fact that Muhammed and Aisha were ever married.

Basically, she conflated the historical phenomenon of child marriage with the psychiatric disorder of paedophilia, and she did that in order to offend and insult. There was no serious attempt to explore or even explain Muhammed's connection with Aisha; it was simply used as pretext to accuse him of being a paedophile, and to give a plausible air to entirely false, or at least unfounded, claims.

recedite wrote: »

You have decided that you don't like the Austrian Freedom Party, and so you support this prosecution while pretending that you still support free speech. That position is similar to the ECHR position, but it is not a credible position to adopt.

Practically nobody likes the Austrian Freedom Party, but that's not really the point. Note that the Austrian Freedom Party is in fact in government in Austria, and so were on the winning side in this case.

What the ECHR was about here was balancing the right to freedom of expression, protected by Art 10, with the right to freedom to manifest religious beliefs in community and in public, protected by Art 9. As you can imagine, tension or outright conflict between different Convention rights happens all the time, and there's a long line of cases which hold that the business of reconciling these tensions and balancing one right against another is first and foremost the responsibility of states, and that states are in principle best-positioned to do it.

So the court allows states a fairly wide "margin of appreciation"; when a case like this comes up the court doesn't ask itself "would we penalise ES, if it were up to us?" or "would we have enacted the Austrian law, if it were up to us?" It ask itself how the Austrian legislation (in general) and the Austrian courts (in this particular instance) have gone about reconciling Art 10 rights with Art 9 rights - have they made an acceptable assessment of the facts, have they considered relevant factors, have they recognised the relevant rights and the need to balance them, do they have relevant and sufficient reasons for the finding that they made and the penalty they imposed, etc etc.

The upshot of all this is that this isn't a finding that the protection of Art 9 rights requires Art 10 rights to be limited in the way Austria limits them; just that in the specific circumstances of Austria the court wasn't prepared to say that Austria had exceeded its "margin of appreciation" in the balance between these rights that it struck. Austria could have made the exact opposite decision, and acquitted ES, and that too might have been found to be within the margin of appreciation.

smacl

Delighted to see Asia Bibi freed today. It shows how barbaric some theocracies can be that they could entertain hanging someone for the crime of blasphemy.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Not only by association, but by imitation. The prophet Mo is considered in Islam to be "the perfect man" and all other men are expected to emulate him as far as possible.
When I say that, I am not inciting to hatred. I am pointing out a truth.

So you're suggesting that all Muslim men are expected to marry and have sex with underage girls? An you consider that truth and not incitement to hatred?

Recedite The Embodiment of Peace

Seriously Rec, cop yourself on, you're visibly frothing at this point. :pac:

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

She said that he "liked to do it with little girls", a claim for which there is precisely zero evidence.

The Irish Times reports her as saying He...

“liked to do it with children” and “a 56-year-old and a six-year-old? . . . What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?

So there is a question mark there, and I think it is a valid question. We have already been over the semantics of this very question.

All that remains is to decide whether you wish to defend the indefensible, or defend the concept of Freedom of speech. Pick a side.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Practically nobody likes the Austrian Freedom Party, but that's not really the point. Note that the Austrian Freedom Party is in fact in government in Austria, and so were on the winning side in this case.

If nobody likes them, how did they get into government?
Nobody likes being prosecuted, therefore they are not "on the winning side". This prosecution was initiated by a previous govt. back in 2010.
Note that back in the elections of 2002 the Freedom party got 10% of the vote, but by 2017 (subsequent to this prosecution and Merkel's open borders policy) their vote had increased to 26%, which enabled them to form a coalition govt. Coincidence? I think not.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The upshot of all this is that this isn't a finding that the protection of Art 9 rights requires Art 10 rights to be limited in the way Austria limits them; just that in the specific circumstances of Austria the court wasn't prepared to say that Austria had exceeded its "margin of appreciation" in the balance between these rights that it struck. Austria could have made the exact opposite decision, and acquitted ES, and that too might have been found to be within the margin of appreciation.

Its more than that, because ECHR said the comments..

"could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship”

Which is a value statement by the ECHR, one that places the offence of blasphemy on a higher plane than the merit of Austria having Free Speech. That is a cop-out by the ECHR.


Recedite, The All-Prevailing One

recedite

smacl wrote: »

So you're suggesting that all Muslim men are expected to marry and have sex with underage girls? An you consider that truth and not incitement to hatred?
Seriously Rec, cop yourself on, you're visibly frothing at this point. :pac:

Sex with underage girls is OK in Islam. Mohammad did it, so why would it not be OK? If you don't grasp this fundamental point, and don't relate it to the Muslim rape gangs that blight the UK, then you are being willfully blind.
Mind you, you are not alone. Not by any means, unfortunately.



Recedite, The Evolver

Hotblack Desiato

smacl wrote: »

Delighted to see Asia Bibi freed today.

The law does not define blasphemy and evidence might not be reproduced in court for fear of committing a fresh offence.

"Well he did say Jehovah!"

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Sex with underage girls is OK in Islam. Mohammad did it, so why would it not be OK?

Because Islam is also very clear about obeying the laws of the land, whatever they might be (source). Mo's actions, while entirely unacceptable by our standards, were acceptable in the society of his time.

Muslims are generally obliged to abide by the laws of the land and the country they live in, whether it is a Islamic state (al-khilafa), Muslim countries, or non-Muslim countries such as those in the west, as long as they are not ordered to practice something that is against Shariah. If they are forced by the law to commit a sin, then in such a case, it will not just be unnecessary to abide by the law, rather impermissible.

Some Muslims are under the impression that it is permissible to violate the laws of countries that are not an Islamic state (al-Khilafa), which is totally incorrect. Muslims must adhere to the laws of any country they live in, whether in the west or the east, as long as the law is not in contradiction with one’s religion.

If you don't grasp this fundamental point, and don't relate it to the Muslim rape gangs that blight the UK, then you are being willfully blind. Mind you, you are not alone. Not by any means, unfortunately.

Bit like pointing the finger at all Dubliners for the crimes of the Hutch-Kinahan gangs or all Irish for the actions of the IRA. Don't know if you visited London or Manchester during the troubles, but you could easily get duffed up just for being Irish in some places at this time. This is the same type of reactionary hate mongering the far right are trying to stir up against the Muslim community.

Recedite, The Evolver

These just keep getting better. I've seen more evolved rationale from flat earthers. :pac:

recedite

smacl wrote: »

Because Islam is also very clear about obeying the laws of the land, whatever they might be (source). Mo's actions, while entirely unacceptable by our standards, were acceptable in the society of his time.

You keep harking back to "the standards of the time" as if Islam has moved on. Child marriage is still a thing in Islamic countries, and is covertly being brought into Europe.
So while people may reluctantly agree to abide by the laws of the land in which they live, that does not mean they agree with those laws. The ideal for a muslim is always to follow the example of Mohammad in all things. If strict local laws prevent that, then so be it. But that does not affect their belief in what is right and what is wrong.



What happens if a westerner goes to a country where alcohol and bacon are forbidden? They end up complying with the cultural norms in public places, but when in private they adhere to their own cultural standards.



Recedite, The All-Prevailing One

smacl

recedite wrote: »

You keep harking back to "the standards of the time" as if Islam has moved on. Child marriage is still a thing in Islamic countries, and is covertly being brought into Europe.
So while people may reluctantly agree to abide by the laws of the land in which they live, that does not mean they agree with those laws. The ideal for a muslim is always to follow the example of Mohammad in all things. If strict local laws prevent that, then so be it. But that does not affect their belief in what is right and what is wrong.

Don't know where you get any of that from your linked article, which seems to be about a demand to reword an information brochure for new immigrants relating to the illegality of child marriage in stronger terms for those entering into the country that are already married to someone underage. This could well apply to non-Muslims as well, given there were some 200,000 child marriages in the states between 2000 and 2015 and you have predominantly Chirstian countries such as Equitorial Guinea where the legal age of marriage is 12.

What happens if a westerner goes to a country where alcohol and bacon are forbidden? They end up complying with the cultural norms in public places, but when in private they adhere to their own cultural standards.

When I travel to countries where alcohol is illegal, I obey the law and don't drink unless it is somewhere that it is legal to do so. If a Muslim breaks the law of the land they are acting against Islam regardless of whether or not it is behind closed doors. Cultural standards don't come into play, you're either breaking the law or not. Now what someone might think or desire is something entirely different but I'd rather hope that Recedite, The Champion of Free Speech would hardly seek to tell someone what they can or can't even think

Odhinn

recedite wrote: »

..............s, and is covertly being brought into Europe.
........................

Do please be as good as to explain what that article has to do with child marriage being "covertly brought into Europe".

recedite

Odhinn wrote: »

Do please be as good as to explain what that article has to do with child marriage being "covertly brought into Europe".

When you have to get boxes of brochures printed out so that you can hand them out to mature men, to explain that marrying a child is illegal, then you have a problem in your midst.


Recedite, The Restricting One

Odhinn

recedite wrote: »

When you have to get boxes of brochures printed out so that you can hand them out to mature men, to explain that marrying a child is illegal, then you have a problem in your midst.

Deflection and evasion time, is it?

Again - Please explain what that article has to do with child marriage being "covertly brought into Europe".

recedite

Odhinn wrote: »

Deflection and evasion time, is it?
Again - Please explain what that article has to do with child marriage being "covertly brought into Europe".

There is a glaring loophole that child brides who have been sold off en route to Europe can be recognised as married if the "marriage" took place before they arrived. This despite the fact that in Europe it is legally impossible for a minor to give consent to such an arrangement.

"Shameful" you say, but not "covert", it is a brazen exploitation of a loophole.

Well, in order to continue with their child abuse, some of these "husbands" have claimed that they are in a platonic relationship, or that they are living with a niece.
Hence the Swedes have put in their brochure...

It is improper for you to live together if the child is under 15

Meanwhile, here in Ireland

David Dalton, CEO of Plan International Ireland says:

The 100 child brides identified to date is potentially only the tip of the ice-berg. In reality, with 442,000 children arriving into Europe in the past 12 months, there are thousands of child-brides living with their ‘husbands’ across the continent.

Certain EU governments and local authorities, in Norway and Sweden, have already issued directives that couples, involving underage girls should be separated. However, this isn’t being applied universally and many brides are being allowed to remain with their husbands. Plan International Ireland believes that the Irish Government must be ready to intervene if child marriages are identified here in Ireland.

https://www.plan.ie/stories/child-marriage-europe/

I call it "covert" because only the tip of the iceberg has been identified, and even then it is not widely publicised. Most Europeans would be disgusted if they knew about it.


Recedite, The Supreme Solver

Cabaal

All the outrage with Muslims but the Christians appear to have little issue with Mary being married off at 12 years of age.

Peregrinus

Cabaal wrote: »

All the outrage with Muslims but the Christians appear to have little issue with Mary being married off at 12 years of age.

Scriptural sources say nothing about Mary's age at her betrothal. From our historical knowledge of that society we know that the usual age of betrothal for a girl was 12 to 14; for a boy, 14 to 17. (Boys could be betrothed at a younger age, but this was unusual, on account of the practical need to be in a position to support a spouse and family.) So (if we take Mary for the purposes of this discussion to be a historical figure) then it's likely that she was age 12-14 when betrothed to Joseph.

Of course, this is about betrothal or marriage, not sex. If the concern is about sexual activity at an age that (by modern standards) is not acceptable, then that's obviously not an issue in Mary's case, since the whole point of the Mary story is that she didn't have sex.

So, if you're feeling all dogmatic and judgemental and wanting to indulge your absolutist morality, you can pretty much open the throttle on righteous condemnations of first-century Palestine as a hotbed of underage sex. But you can't really accuse the Christians of endorsing it by their veneration of Mary.

Trent Houseboat

It's not the veneration of Mary that endorses it it's the believing in an almighty God who impregnated her.

Sure we can say people from the time knew no better, and extend that by five hundred years for the ProMo if you want, but Yahweh should have known that he was acting the nonce.

King Mob

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

It's not the veneration of Mary that endorses it it's the believing in an almighty God who impregnated her.

Sure we can say people from the time knew no better, and extend that by five hundred years for the ProMo if you want, but Yahweh should have known that he was acting the nonce.

Even if Mary was of an age where she could possibly consent, the whole thing is still incredibly messed up when you consider the power imbalance in play here.
Sure God gave Mary the choice, but the implications would have been there...

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Of course, this is about betrothal or marriage, not sex. If the concern is about sexual activity at an age that (by modern standards) is not acceptable, then that's obviously not an issue in Mary's case, since the whole point of the Mary story is that she didn't have sex

Point of the story perhaps, but on an atheist forum, if we believe from a historical perspective that Jesus existed and Mary was his mother then we also assume that she got pregnant the normal way. That said, I'm very much of the opinion that criticizing the behavior of people from a couple of thousand years ago using modern norms is patently ridiculous.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

Point of the story perhaps, but on an atheist forum, if we believe from a historical perspective that Jesus existed and Mary was his mother then we also assume that she got pregnant the normal way. That said, I'm very much of the opinion that criticizing the behavior of people from a couple of thousand years ago using modern norms is patently ridiculous.

True, but this "whatabout Mary" was introduced as a deflection when we were actually talking about 21st Century Islam.

Recedite, The Great Forgiver

smacl

recedite wrote: »

True, but this "whatabout Mary" was introduced as a deflection when we were actually talking about 21st Century Islam.

Recedite, The Great Forgiver

Not really though. What we were talking about was whether certain members of the far right should be allowed refer to Mo as a pedophile as a mechanism to polarize opinion against the wider Muslim community. The idea that you can hold a large percentage a given population to account for a tiny minority of extremists among it ranks, purely because they share the same religion or nationality, is not reasonable, yet we see it done. You know the way Yaxley did once when he threatened the entire Islamic community based on the actions of a tiny number of terrorists, for which he later had to apologize. Freedom of speech versus incitement to hatred and all that. As per my previous post, would you consider yourself in any way accountable for the actions of the IRA, INLA, UVF or UDA? Because that is exactly what is being done here.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

As per my previous post, would you consider yourself in any way accountable for the actions of the IRA, INLA, UVF or UDA? Because that is exactly what is being done here.

Not the same thing at all. I am not a member of any of those orgs, therefore I am not accountable for anything they stand for.
Neither am I a muslim. So don't ask me to defend Islam.

You have consistently ignored the discussion in this thread relating to child marriage being a thing in contemporary Islam, while at the same time you have deflected the discussion to ancient history.


Recedite, The Sublime One

TheChizler

recedite wrote: »

Not the same thing at all. I am not a member of any of those orgs, therefore I am not accountable for anything they stand for.

How about being Irish? Back in the day that was all the association you needed.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

You have consistently ignored the discussion in this thread relating to child marriage being a thing in contemporary Islam, while at the same time you have deflected the discussion to ancient history.

Not at all. As I have already pointed out, with references, Islam demands that its followers obey the rule of law in whatever country they live in. Thus any underage marriage by Muslims in Western society runs directly contrary to their religious dogma. The ancient history was dragged into the discussion from the far right when they decided to try to attack all Muslims based on the actions of a dude who's been dead for over two thousand years and treating his actions as contemporary. If we're going to be critical of Islam, and I think we should be, it should be on a reasoned basis. I'm guessing the right don't do this as the criticisms you might level, e.g. anti-egalitarian, socially regressive, and overly conservative, also tend to apply to many of the far right.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Point of the story perhaps, but on an atheist forum, if we believe from a historical perspective that Jesus existed and Mary was his mother then we also assume that she got pregnant the normal way.

Yes, but if we are attacking the (presumed) attitudes of Christians to the story we have to deal with how Christians read and understand the scriptures, not with how atheists do.

smacl wrote: »

That said, I'm very much of the opinion that criticizing the behavior of people from a couple of thousand years ago using modern norms is patently ridiculous.

This.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

True, but this "whatabout Mary" was introduced as a deflection when we were actually talking about 21st Century Islam.

No, we were talking about whether the prophet Mohammed could legitmately be called a paedophile.

robindch

Canada is set to repeal its own law against blasphemy - now only requiring Royal Assent.

The announcement is here, the bill's passage through parliament is here, the bill itself is here and the law being repealed is this puppy:

Canadian Criminal Code, Section 296 wrote:

Offence

296 (1) Every one who publishes a blasphemous libel is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

(2) It is a question of fact whether or not any matter that is published is a blasphemous libel.

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section for expressing in good faith and in decent language, or attempting to establish by argument used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, an opinion on a religious subject.

Peregrinus

Trivium of the day: while the last blasphemy prosucution in Ireland was in 1855 (and that resulted in an acquittal), the Canadian offence was prosecuted as recently (!) as 1935, and a conviction was secured. An Anglican minister was convicted on the basis of comments that he had made about the Roman Catholic church. I had no idea the Canadians were so intolerant. :-)

robindch

Blasphemy to be repealed in time for - Easter!

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/blasphemy-offence-due-to-be-removed-by-easter-1.3738321

Irish Times wrote:

The Minister for Justice Charlie Flanagan is planning to remove the offence of blasphemy by next Easter.

Mr Flanagan today published a Bill to give effect to the result of October’s referendum where voters overwhelmingly supported the proposal to remove blasphemy as an offence from the Constitution.

The final result showed that 64.85% voted Yes while 35.15% voted No. Mr Flanagan said his Bill would ensure that prosecutions for blasphemy will be no longer possible. The Department of Justice expects that the legislation will be passed by mid-April, depending on what Brexit-related legislation needs to be passed before then.

“During the course of the referendum campaign, it was made very clear that, in the event of the referendum proposal being agreed, the Government would respond by bringing forward legislation which would repeal sections 36 and 37 of the Defamation Act 2009 which provide a statutory basis for the offence of blasphemy. The repeal of those sections is the key element in the General Scheme which has been published on my Department’s website. The proposed repeal is fully in accord with the policy that it should no longer be possible to initiate a prosecution for blasphemy in this jurisdiction.”

Mr Flanagan said he is also moving to reform defamation laws. “I would like to confirm that my Department is finalising a review of the Defamation Act 2009 which will address issues other than those falling within the scope of the cheme which has just been published.”

He said after a public consultation, issues to be covered by the review will include the respective roles of judge and jury in defamation cases, the defences available to the media in the context of public-interest news reporting, and the level of damages which can be awarded by Irish courts in defamation cases. “This review is a priority for me and I expect that it should be completed during the first quarter of 2019”.