[ad_1]
But that is what is most appalling: the decision of the ECHR is not false, even if its reasoning is ridiculous. ES "was intended to demonstrate that Muhammad was not a valid worship subject," said the court, with the intention of "denigrating religious precepts". If it's a crime – and in Austria that's the case – then she's guilty. the Austrian people to revise their laws to protect their rights and theirs.
The relative scarcity of lawsuits under these laws has led many to believe that they do not exist or that they are void and only appear in books for ancient reasons. The case of E. S. shows that they are not. In Denmark, the law does not even protect truthful and truthful public statements, if they tend to incite racial or religious hatred. In Ireland, a referendum cleared the country of blasphemy laws only yesterday. The United Kingdom has abolished its blasphemy law only in 2008. (Here is the poem of James Kirkup that was the subject of the last trial in Britain, in 1977. Click here. through if you do not mind reading about gay sex with Jesus or necrophilia.If you can not take them in combination, you should probably skip it.)
Non-Europeans and Europeans regularly tear down the fundamental right to freedom of conscience and expression. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation has repeatedly urged countries to criminalize the defamation of religions, which in practice means prohibiting almost everything that harms the sensitivity of a believer. The European Convention on Human Rights specifically reserves to its signatories the right to compel citizens to remain silent if their statements threaten "public security" and "health or morals" or could cause, intentionally or unintentionally, a "disorder or crime". The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is signed and ratified even by the United States, provides an exception that allows the violation of the language "for the protection of public order, health or morality". ". the speech would be unconstitutional, other countries have provisions to force your silence, if what you say hurts people or makes them crazy enough to commit acts of violence.
Calling restraint on the speech "the veto of the executioner" is all too delicate: it is more like the veto of the murderer. Proponents of the murderer's veto rightly point out that all corporations limit certain speeches – in the United States, actual threats and direct incitement to imminent and illegal behavior, for example, are illegal. But if societies really want freedom of expression, they must protect that right, especially in difficult situations, and not compromise it at the slightest sign that someone can be indignant, and even less violent, what another person said. The Austrian court has claimed to balance this right with other legitimate social concerns. But if the European courts consider that the freedom of expression is hardly heavy, as it appears in this case, they should spare us their holiness and admit that they do not absolutely value the freedom of expression. Have the courage to admit your cowardice.
