by Judith Bergman • November 23, 2018 at 5:30 am The ruling of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is not only wrong for establishing a precedent for sharia-compliant adherence to Islamic blasphemy laws, but appears to be based on a number of false premises. The real message the ECHR sent, as it succumbed to fears of "disturbing the religious peace," is that if threats work, keep threatening! What sort of protection of human rights is that? Just who is it, by the way, that gets to decide what is "incriminating"? Formerly, it was the Inquisition. Islamic blasphemy laws have now been elevated to the law of the land in Europe.
 (Image source: iStock) The European Court of Human Rights ruled on October 25 that to state that the Islamic prophet Muhammad "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?" goes "beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate," and could be classified as "an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam which could stir up prejudice and threaten religious peace." The Court's judgment has a long history. In 2011, free speech and anti-jihad activist, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, was convicted by an Austrian court of "denigrating religious symbols of a recognized religious group" after she gave a series of small seminars: "Introduction to the basics of Islam", "The Islamization of Europe", and "The impact of Islam".[1] Continue Reading Article | | | |
--
Disclaimer:Everyone posting to this Forum bears the sole responsibility for any legal consequences of his or her postings, and hence statements and facts must be presented responsibly. Your continued membership signifies that you agree to this disclaimer and pledge to abide by our Rules and Guidelines.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ugandans-at-heart+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment