The ’60s Radicals Won the Culture War by Victor Davis HansonNovember 26, 2018
George Neumayr: The Stench From CupichChurch ‘The Most Powerful Cardinal in America’November 26, 2018
By Michael F. Haverluck, OneNewsNow, November 25, 2018
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has bowed down to Muslim pressure by establishing a pro-sharia precedent that adheres to strict Islamic blasphemy laws.
According to the Gatestone Institute, the ruling is grounded in numerous 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?” Gatestone Institute Senior Fellow Judith Bergman asked. “Just who is it, by the way, that gets to decide what is ‘incriminating?’ Formerly, it was the Inquisition.”
Europe now adopting Sharia law?
Today, it is contended that Islamic blasphemy laws are being increasingly used and adopted in Europe as the law of the land – especially in nations that openly welcome Muslim migrants to alleviate the so-called “refugee crisis.”
“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 pedophilia?’ 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,’” Bergman – a prominent columnist, attorney and political analyst – shared.
The claims about Muhammad’s statutory rape of children were made by a vocal critic of Islam who is dedicated to alert the world about the dangers of militant Islam – a religion that the left likes to brand as a religion of peace.
Pro-Muslim rulings are not uncommon with the ECHR.
“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,’” Bergman recounted. “No Muslims appear to have attended Sabaditsch-Wolff’s seminars. The court case against her came about only because a magazine, NEWS, filed a complaint against her after secretly planting a journalist at her seminars to record them.”
The summary of ECHR’s judgment faulted Sabaditsch-Wolff, declaring that her “statements implied that Muhammad had had pedophilic tendencies,” convicting her for “disparaging religious doctrines.”
After receiving her punishment, Sabaditsch-Wolff contested the ruling, but to no avail in the pro-Islam court system.
“Her appeal to the ECHR cited her freedom of expression [being violated],” WND recounted.
The decision appeared to contradict protections that have been traditionally extended to Europeans.
“Opinions expressed in strong or exaggerated language were also protected,” the WND report continued.
Her words ended up being costly.
“Sabaditsch-Wolff was ordered to pay a fine of 480 euros and the costs of the proceedings,” Bergman recounted. “The Vienna Court of Appeal upheld the decision in December 2011. Sabaditsch-Wolff then appealed the Austrian court decisions to the European Court of Human Rights.”
The ECHR ruled later that month that “no violation of Article 10” had taken place against the anti-Islam speaker.
“The Court found, in particular, that the domestic courts comprehensively assessed the wider context of the applicant’s statements and carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria,” the ECHR ruling stated. “It held that by considering the impugned statements as going beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate – and by classifying them as an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam which could stir up prejudice and threaten religious peace – the domestic courts put forward relevant and sufficient reasons.”
It is argued that there was errant reasoning behind the ECHR’s ruling.
“First, the ECHR decided that, ‘The subject matter of the instant case was of a particularly sensitive nature,’” Bergman pointed out. “The subject matter of the case does not, in fact, appear to be more ‘sensitive’ than other subject matter brought before the ECHR. It deals, after all, with cases concerning violence against children, reproductive rights, mental illness and end-of-life issues, among others.”
Europe caving in to Islam
It is argued that the legal system in Europe is now in the habit of catering and bowing down to Muslims out of fear.
“Not only did the ECHR seemingly depart from formerly held positions; it also held that: ‘even in a lively discussion it was not compatible with Article 10 of the Convention to pack incriminating statements into the wrapping of an otherwise acceptable expression of opinion and claim that this rendered passable those statements exceeding the permissible limits of freedom of expression,” Bergman asserted.
She pointed out how the ECHR contradicts the very principles that undergird democracies.
“[Lively discussions are protected in a democratic society because] that is what freedom of expression is all about,” Bergman argued. “Now, however, the ECHR has set a clear boundary: Even if you are having a lively discussion, which would usually be protected, referring to Muhammad – in supposedly ‘incriminating statements’ – is prohibited, even if you do not use disturbing or shocking language, but formulate the defamation in the wrapping of an otherwise acceptable expression of opinion.’”
It was also stressed how the European court makes criticizing Islam criminal behavior.
“According to this latest judgment, defaming the Islamic prophet Muhammad – even if inadvertently – is quite simply always unacceptable, regardless of the language,” Bergman impressed.