Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    European Court of Human Rights: Criticism of Islam not protected free speech

    European Court of Human Rights: Criticism of Islam not protected free speech

    “the right of others to have their religious feelings protected”

    In 2009, an Austrian woman conducting a seminar on Islam argued that Muhammad’s marriage to a six year old girl meant he was a pedophile. She was convicted for this by an Austrian court, and now the European Court of Human Rights agrees.

    We certainly have free speech issues in the United States, but nothing this surreal. Yet. has details:

    Calling Prophet Muhammad a pedophile does not fall within freedom of speech: European court

    An Austrian woman’s conviction for calling the Prophet Muhammad a pedophile did not violate her freedom of speech, the European Court of Human Rights ruled Thursday.

    The Strasbourg-based ECHR ruled that Austrian courts carefully balanced the applicant’s “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 woman in 2009 held two seminars entitled “Basic Information on Islam,” during which she likened Muhammad’s marriage to a six-year-old girl, Aisha, to pedophilia.

    Limits of free speech

    The marriage according to Islamic tradition was consummated when Aisha was nine and Muhammad was around 50. Aisha was the daughter of Muhammad’s best friend and the first caliph, Abu Bakr.

    The court cited the Austrian women stating during the seminar that 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?”

    Yale scholar Nicholas Christakis makes an excellent point here:

    Amarnath Amarasingam has posted the full decision:

    Jim Treacher wrote about this at PJ Media on Friday and noted its chilling nature:

    In 2018 Europe, you can’t say that Mohammed was a pedophile or the law will come after you. Punishing you for insulting a man who’s been dead for 1,400 years isn’t a violation of your human rights, because you’ve offended a protected class. You’ve pissed off the wrong people, and now you’ll pay.

    Think about this phrase: “The right of others to have their religious feelings protected.” Isn’t that wonderful? You’d better watch what you say, because other people have religious feelings and they have the right to be protected from your harmful words. They have the right to “religious peace,” so you’d better not disturb it by saying something you shouldn’t.

    Will all faiths in Europe enjoy this new standard of having their religious feelings protected?

    And is that really the world the people of Europe want to live in?


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    Albigensian | October 29, 2018 at 10:08 am

    In a rational legal system, truth is an absolute defense against a claim of defamation.

    Although you might have difficulty proving that Mohammad consummated a marriage with a nine-year-old girl, the claim is obviously part of Islamic tradition.

    In any case, one wonders what the restrictions must be on what scholars may write on the history of Islam, if truth is held to be a less than sufficient defense against claims of defamation.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend