Pero_Bueno wrote: » Well it will be a criminal offence to criticise Muhammed under the European Court of human rightshttps://twitter.com/ShoaibMKhan/status/1055392526323073024 So will this supercede the Irish law if it's voted out tomorrow ?
BabyCheeses wrote: » People can probabaly look at an issue and weigh up the pros and cons. At first I was going to ask if you'll be sticking it to the libs or muslims but then I remembered when it comes to women's and gay rights you probably always side with Islam already so why would it be different this time. You should consider converting, you would likely agree with a lot of it.
Mark Hamill wrote: » Came across this Twitter post via a Facebook friend. The point in it is that seemingly at least one minority religious group (a womens Muslim group) are going to vote No on the blasphemy referendum as they feel that the blasphemy legislation is the only thing to protect themselves against hate speech. Now I know that the blasphemy law doesn't actually give any protection from hate speech, but I haven't really followed any of the debates or reports coming up to the referendum so I am wondering has this point been made by anyone in the media and if it has been responded to?
recedite wrote: » Low turnout usually means a higher % of pensioners at the polls, and they tend to be more conservative. I suspect the repeal will pass, but not by as wide a margin as might be expected.
Strawberry1975 wrote: » Drug driving
Peregrinus wrote: » All that the ES case says is that a state may make it a crime to disparage religious doctrines in the terms that Austria does, and that making it a crime does not infringe the European Convention on Human Rights. It doesn't say that states must or should make it a crime.
Pero_Bueno wrote: » Well it will be a criminal offence to criticise Muhammed under the European Court of human rights
robindch wrote: » Mod:Any more trolling from you, young Hector, and you'll be feeling the lash of a moderator's whip.
seamus wrote: » No. I don't know if you're deliberately misrepresenting or just completely misreading that. The ECHR has simply said that in this case that there was no breach of the person's human rights, taking everything into account. The ECHR has not said that criticising Mohammed is, or will be, or should be, a criminal offence. Or that blasphemy, is, will be, or should be a criminal offence. We have an "incitement to hatred" crime here, which can already be invoked in these instances.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Mohammed was a paedophile, though, that's not in dispute. *holds out arms in handcuff-me gesture*
Hector Savage wrote: » Whats the definition of hate speech though ?
Hector Savage wrote: » It's a slippery slope, mere criticism of Islam is classed as "hate speech" by some.
TheChizler wrote: » Only if you use the red-top definition of paedophile though. [/pedant]
Mark Hamill wrote: » It's here in the legislation. But not necessarily by the law, so that's irrelevant like all slippery slope fallacies.
if the written material, words, behaviour, visual images or sounds, as the case may be, are threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred.
Mark Hamill wrote: » Didn't he consummate his marriage to Aisha when she was 10/11? Doesn't that make him a paedophile?
Aubree Howling Memo wrote: » I think its actually 9 years of age!
Hector Savage wrote: » From the link This is left ambiguous, could be anything - if someone says the statement "Islam is a dangerous" ideology can stir up hatred - then thats it. Hate Speech. I work in the AI/linguistics tech - and the statement "Islam is not a real religion" is classed as hate speech. Insert any other religion in there and it's not. Twitter/facebook/all the big SM companies would use a similar classifier algorithm - that's why I am always so skeptical when I hear these stats and headlines about the rise of "hate" speech against Islam on social media. The key here is how is hate speech defined.
Hector Savage wrote: » This is left ambiguous, could be anything - if someone says the statement "Islam is a dangerous" ideology can stir up hatred - then thats it.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » I can have a look once I see proof for the assertion that Islam can't be criticised.
Hector Savage wrote: » 6 apparently , and marriage not consummated till 9. So, if that's not peadophilia then I just don't know where to start.
seamus wrote: » It's actually less ambiguous than it sounds. The "hatred" has to be directed towards a group. So you can say things that make other people hate you. You can (obviously) say things that make you hate others. You can say things that make an individual hate a group ("John, your car was stolen by travellers") Or things that make a group hate an individual, ("Travellers, John wants to burn your homes"). But if you say something that will make a group of people hate another group, ("Travellers are driving around your town looking for babies to steal"), then you're veering into incitement to hatred territory. And honest belief is generally a defence. If your intention is not to incite hatred, then that's a fairly basic defence. "Islam is a dangerous ideology", would not fall into the classification. "Muslims are coming to our country to rape our women and impose Sharia law, so we need to rise up and kick them out" - Now there's some incitement to hatred.
TheChizler wrote: » Stories seem to vary from 6 up to late teens when they got married, and IIRC from when I last looked into it the marriage wasn't consummated until she hit puberty. So if that's to be believed it doesn't fit the definition for paedophilia of having an exclusive or primary attraction to prepubescent children. His first wife was in her forties and there were several more of various ages inbetween, so if he was attracted to them it wasn't a primary or exclusive attraction either. So by modern standards it was serious child abuse, but not paedophilia, technically. Which is a worse label IMO since you can be a paedophile but have never harmed a child.
Mark Hamill wrote: » I don't think most, if any, people would seriously argue that a 9-11 year old stops being a child simply because the have just had their first period.
smacl wrote: » It would be interesting to know if this was typical for people in that time and place or specific to Mo. AFAIK, average life expectancy in Egypt at that time was ~30 give or take. To give a bit of context, according to this link Mary was apparently 13-14 when she gave birth to Jesus. Just a guess, but it's seems likely that starting to have sex after a girl had her first period might not have been that unusual back then.
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » The court held “that by considering the impugned statements as going beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate and classifying them as an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam, which could stir up prejudice and put at risk religious peace, the domestic courts put forward relevant and sufficient reasons.” There’s no hatred towards Muslims as a group in her statement. The courts are protecting religious feelings
The statement also added that there had been no violation of Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, covering freedom of expression. "Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), E.S. complained that the domestic courts failed to address the substance of the impugned statements in the light of her right to freedom of expression." ES' statements "were not phrased in a neutral manner aimed at being an objective contribution to a public debate concerning child marriages," the ECtHR held, adding that the moderate fine imposed on her could not be considered disproportionate. The Austrian courts had drawn a distinction between pedophilia and child marriage, which was also a common practice historically in European ruling families.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a2f3ae3bc561a654d087af4d67ea885a.svg)
