|
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]
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment