Results 1 to 4 of 4


  1. #1


    European Court of Human Rights prohibits insulting Prophet Muhammad

    The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) dismissed a complaint from a resident of Austria, who had been earlier fined for criticising Prophet Mohammad. The woman wanted to challenge the decision of local authorities appealing to her right for freedom of speech.

    The resident of Austria said during a religious seminar in 2009 that Prophet Muhammad was prone to pedophilia. To substantiate her point of view, the woman referred to information about one of his wives, who, according to her, was only six years old when the marriage was concluded. "A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? ... What do we call it, if it is not pedophilia?" the woman then said. She did not mention, though, that the marriage had continued until Muhammad's death, when the girl, Aisha, turned 18.

    In 2011, the Regional Criminal Court of Vienna found an unmotivated "humiliation of religious doctrines" in those remarks and sentenced the woman to a fine of €480 and claim costs reimbursements. Neither the court of appeal nor the Supreme Court upheld the appeal against this decision.

    The European Court noted that criticism of religious judgments was not prohibited. However, if such statements may pursue the goal of "incitement of hatred on religious grounds", the state has the right to recognise them as statements exempt from freedom of speech. In addition, officials with the ECHR stressed that the fine that the unnamed Austrian citizen would have to pay is one of the lowest and therefore cannot be considered as exceeded.

    Muhammad is not worthy of worship.

    Don’t defame Mohammed: ECHR affirms European sharia blasphemy law

    The European Court of Human Rights has
    unanimously decreed that national governments may fine or imprison their citizens for attacking or defaming Mohammed. The judges determined that “the Prophet of Islam” may not be called a paedophile because to do so is: i) devoid of historical context; and ii) false because he also had adult wives (so taking a bath with children and fondling them is fine so long as you also fondle adults?). Henceforth, those who make “an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam, which [is] capable of stirring up prejudice and putting at risk religious peace” may be subject to “a moderate fine” of €480 or serve 60 days of imprisonment in the event of default.

    Is that clear? In Europe, in the 21st century, to be fined or imprisoned for defaming Mohammed is not a violation of the freedom of expression, because such an attack “goes beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate” and is “likely to arouse justified indignation in Muslims”.

    Whatever level of non-expertise in Islamic theology or history the Austrian national known as ‘Mrs. S.’ possessed, by this bizarre judgment the ECHR eschews foundational values of the Enlightenment by facilitating the spread of a sharia blasphemy code in Europe. It appears henceforth that only academic experts in seventh-century Arabian history or law may comment on the fact (and for many Muslims it is a fact) that the 56-year-old Mohammed married a six-year-old girl called Aisha (and consummated the marriage when she was nine). It isn’t clear what level of academic certification the ECHR judges require in order to establish adequate learning and knowledge (PhD? A-level Religious Studies?), but it is certain that if, like ‘Mrs. S.’, you offer seminars on Islam which do not provide information in an “objective manner”, you may now be fined (or imprisoned) for imparting your prejudice or ignorance.

    Of course, in the matter of Aisha’s betrothal to Mohammed there is cultural context and religious history to consider (as there is in all of Mohammed’s war-mongering and barbarism [may one say that?]), and all of this contested history, contentious theology and murky religious sociology is rather more interesting and ethically nuanced than crassly hurling ‘paedo’ allegations at Mohammed. But there is something inescapably suicidal about a purported Court of the Enlightenment determining that statements about a religion which are “capable of arousing justified indignation” constitute a “malicious violation of the spirit of tolerance”, and so must be censored. Or, more specifically, those who defame Mohammed from a point of historical ignorance or religious prejudice may now be fined or imprisoned. If Islam forbids any criticism of its precepts, permitting only Islamic scholars to pronounce upon the reliability of its history and the validity of its morality, and if the ECHR now affirms this, in what sense is this not a violation of the freedom of expression of both non-Muslims and all those enlightened Muslims who wish to carry out a bit of quranic or hadithic form criticism and develop a reason-based prophetology?

    Presumably, attacking or defaming Jesus is permissible because it is unlikely to arouse “justified indignation” in Christians. Or at least it is not likely “to disturb the religious peace” of the country. Or is it that any indignation felt by Christians would be unjustified? It isn’t clear what the wider implications of this judgment may be: we are not likely to see a Europe-wide ban on broadcasting The Life of Brian.

    But to learn that one who has sex with children is not a paedophile provided that he (or she) also has sex with adults is a part of this judgment which will have consequences far beyond the reputation of a long-dead false* prophet called Mohammed.

    Don’t defame Mohammed: ECHR affirms European sharia blasphemy law 02 May 2019.

  2. #2

    Leaving the ECHR is not enough

    Leaving the ECHR is not enough, we need to take back control from European and British judges.

    The UK could be leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The EU has demanded that the UK be bound by the ECHR as a condition of a post-Brexit trade deal. Reports suggest the government could reject this demand, paving the way to leave the ECHR at a later date. Leaving the jurisdiction of the ECHR would also require repealing the UK Human Rights Act, which in 1998 made the European Convention part of English law.

    It is revealing that the ECHR has become part of the EU’s negotiating strategy. In the aftermath of the Brexit referendum,
    human-rightsorganisations were desperate to point out that the ECHR is separate to the EU. Indeed, it is often confused with the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg, which decides on matters relating to EU law. The ECHR, on the other hand, was drafted by the Council of Europe and is overseen by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The ECHR also tends to give a significant margin of appreciation to UK courts, meaning that Strasbourg rarely overturns decisions made by British judges.

    But just because the ECHR and the EU are formally separate does not mean they are unrelated. Both institutions have their roots in the 1948 Hague Congress, or the Congress of Europe. The architects of the ECHR were predominantly British Conservatives, like Winston Churchill and David Maxwell Fyfe, who were concerned about the spread of socialism from the Soviet Union across Western Europe. Both the ECHR and the European Economic Community (the EU’s predecessor) were seen as a way of protecting European elites from the supposedly malign influence of democracy.

    The UK should stick to its guns. Leaving the ECHR would present a significant opportunity to rethink the relationship between the individual and the state.

    Some commentators have argued that a repeal of the Human Rights Act would provide the opportunity for a British Bill of Rights, or some other law, which would better empower the British courts to protect our freedoms. The British Common Law, they argue, is the proper forum for the defence of our hard-won liberties.

    But this is short-sighted. It would merely replace one law empowering the judiciary with another. It is true that the British Common Law is the origin of many important legal rights. That does not mean we should rely on the courts to limit the intrusion of the law into our lives.

    We need to build a political community which truly respects individual freedom. This means wrestling control of freedom back not just from the judges in Europe, but also the judiciary in the UK.

    We should start by repealing repressive laws. Laws like the Malicious Communications Act of 1988 and the Communications Act 2003 are now regularly used to police what people say online. We should introduce a strong presumption against prosecuting anyone accused of speech offences. We should look at our public-order legislation, which for decades has placed huge power in the hands of the police to control freedom of assembly. We need to look at the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), which gives unprecedented powers to local authorities to place people under surveillance. Leaving the ECHR will mean little if we do not also reform the domestic laws which threaten liberty.

    If we are really going to ‘take back control’, we must limit the power of the law over people’s lives. This should not just mean leaving the European Convention. It should also mean repealing the UK laws which give the authorities and courts too much power to set the parameters of our freedom. Building a free society is a political rather than a legal project. It can only be achieved through democratic pressure and the political process, not legal cases in the courts.

    The human rights act, an asinine invention written by lefty sentimental fools who created a charter for law breaking criminals who have deprived their innocent law abiding victim of their human rights and in many cases their lives. AND THEN have scrupulous bent lawyers use this rancid system to protect the scum of the earth. We need rights who protect the victim and not the law breaker, and discard the protections that are stacked in the criminal’s favour.

    Leaving the ECHR is not enough - spiked

    08 III 2020.

    Abu Qatada
    claimed asylum in the United Kingdom in 1993 on a forged passport. In 1999, he was convicted in absentia in Jordan of planningthwarted terror plots during Jordan's millennium eve, and was sentenced to lifetime imprisonment with hard labour.[4] Abu Qatada was repeatedly imprisoned and released in the United Kingdom after he was first detained under anti-terrorism laws in 2002, but was not prosecuted for any crime.[7][8][9] The Algerian government described Abu Qatada as being involved with Islamists in London and possibly elsewhere.[10][11] After initially barring the United Kingdom from deporting Abu Qatada to Jordan, in May 2012 the European Court of Human Rights denied him leave to appeal against deportation without specifying a reason.[12][13]

    Abu Qatada - Wikipedia

    Abu Hamza
    , is an Egyptian cleric who was the imam of Finsbury Park Mosquein London, England, where he preached Islamic fundamentalism and militant Islamism.

    In 1979, he entered Britain on a student visa.[8] His initial reaction to life in Britain was to describe it as "a paradise, where you could do anything you wanted."[9

    In the early 1990s, Hamza lived in Bosnia under another name, and fought alongside Bosniaks against Serbs and Croats during the Bosnian War.[12][13]

    Hamza, who has one eye and no hands, once claimed he lost them fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan.[14] CNN reported they were "injuries he says he sustained while tackling a landmine in Afghanistan."[15] Among several accounts that take issue with Hamza's story,[16][17] BBCsecurity correspondent Gordon Corera's introduction to Omar Nasiri's memoir Inside the Jihad: My Life with Al Qaeda says Hamza "boosted his credibility" with rumours he sustained the injuries fighting jihad; also that Nasiri knew they resulted from "an accident during experiments in a training camp", and Hamza asked Nasiri "to keep this secret in order to avoid undermining his reputation."[18] During his trial in the United States, Hamza stated that his injuries occurred whilst working with explosives with the Pakistani military in Lahore.[19] The UK tabloid press have nicknamed him "Hook" in allusion to the fictional pirate Captain Hook.[20][21][22]


    On 16 May 1980, Hamza married British citizen Valerie Fleming, a Roman Catholic convert to Islam,[23] and soon after they had a son, Mohammed Mustafa Kamel born in October 1981. In 1984, their relationship came under increasing strain and later in that year Hamza took three-year-old Mohammed with him to Egypt, effectively breaking contact with Valerie.[24] Eventually they divorced and he married Najat Mustafa, with whom he has seven children: five sons followed by two daughters.[25] Hamza's stepdaughter, Donna Traverso, told The Times in 2006 that she was convinced Hamza had duped her mother, Valerie, into marrying him in order to gain the right to stay in the UK (see "Arrests, charges and imprisonment" below).[26]

    In 2004, Hamza was arrested by British police after the United States requested he be extradited to face charges. He was later charged by British authorities with sixteen offences for inciting violence and racial hatred.[3] In 2006, a British court found him guilty of inciting violence, and sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment. On 5 October 2012, after an eight-year legal battle, he was extradited from the UK to the United States to face terrorism charges[4][5] and on 14 April 2014 his trial began in New York.[6] On 19 May 2014, Hamza was found guilty of eleven terrorism charges by a jury in Manhattan. On 9 January 2015, he was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

    Abu Hamza al-Masri - Wikipedia

    These ‘revolting’ Islamic militants enter the UK and because of Human Rights can’t be deported. They never work and pay tax. They are life-long welfare recipients whom with their large families cost the state a great deal.

  3. #3

    Let’s get the hell out of the ECHR

    Let’s get the hell out of the ECHR

    The court’s blocking of the first flight to Rwanda is a grave assault on British democracy.

    This is about democracy now. Nothing else. Forget the rights and wrongs of the Rwanda policy – we can discuss those another time. Forget the question of whether this policy will work, whether it will deter those reckless boat crossings in the English Channel – we can come back to that. For now, only one issue matters: who governs this country? Is it me and you and the people we elect into power? Or is it judges in Strasbourg none of us can name, far less cast a ballot for? The deeply disturbing events of last night – where a foreign court helped to block Britain’s democratically elected government from enacting a policy decision – suggest it’s the latter. And that should rattle everyone who believes in the hard-won idea that it’s the people who should rule.

    Let’s be clear: the European Court of Human Rights’ late-night stalling of the first flight to Rwanda is a grave and intolerable assault on British democracy. The executive and legal authorities here in the UK had decreed that the flight taking illegal migrants to Rwanda should go ahead. The government that was voted into power by 14 million people wanted it to take off. The High Court, one of the most senior courts in the land, said the government had every right to deport migrants in this fashion. And yet at the last minute, courtesy of the ceaseless activism of lawyers who oppose the Rwanda policy, the ECHR decreed that one of the seven people due to be on the flight should not be deported, and as a result the six others were able to make last-minute applications to stay in the UK. And so were the wishes of a democratically elected government thwarted by judges in a distant land.

    Entirely unsurprisingly, the woke set is loudly cheering the ECHR’s actions. These people are a menace to democracy. So intense is their hatred for the Tories, and so deep is their distrust of the people of Britain, that they now place more faith in the unaccountable machinations of faraway courts than they do in our own democratic process. We’ve seen this time and again – the more that liberals and leftists have lost faith in the plebs, in the ‘gammon’, the more they have cosied up to oligarchical and legal structures, from the EU to the ECHR, that they hope will keep our passions and beliefs in check. They know that their ideologies are unpopular among vast swathes of the population, and that we are unlikely to put them into power anytime soon. And so they turn to unaccountable power to do their dirty work for them, to tear down democratically made policies they don’t like. It is an incredibly cynical and classist form of political activism. These elites have no idea how much anger their slippery efforts to stifle democracy are causing across the country.

    According to the Guardian, the middle-class angst about the Rwanda policy speaks to the emergence of a new opposition, an alternative opposition. And what does this opposition consist of? ‘Monarchy, celebrity and clergy’, the Guardian says. Seriously. Apparently, the coming together of everyone from Prince Charles to the entire leadership of the Church of England to ‘famous names’ on Twitter suggests that a new moral revolt is growing. I’m sorry, but this is not ‘opposition’ – at least not any normal, democratic form of opposition. It is elitism. When the heir to the throne, unaccountable bishops and the Remainer elites who tried to overthrow the largest democratic vote in the history of this country come together to try to block a government policy, they are not engaging in politics as we know it. Rather, they are asserting their arrogant, aristocratic conviction that their moral feelings should take precedence over the votes of 14 million people. That sections of the left are aligning with these archaic, princely plots against the elected government is shameful. They are sacrificing democracy at the altar of their anti-Tory hysteria.

    There’s one good thing about the ECHR’s actions – they have reminded us that the battle for democracy is not won yet. We left the EU, and now we must leave the ECHR. We must leave every institution and international treaty which in any way hampers our ability as a sovereign nation to determine policy as we see fit. Let’s scrap the Human Rights Act, get out of the European court, and decide for ourselves, democratically, how to make Britain into a truly free, fair and democratic nation.

    Let's get the Hell out of the ECHR.
    21 VI 2022.

    Control academia and the media, the kids in the country are then 'cultural marxists' welcoming the great replacement invasion.The entire third world thinks we are completely stupid and is just laughing at us.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Theunissen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    21 Hours Ago @ 03:47 PM
    North Western Europe
    South Africa South Africa
    Transvaal Transvaal
    South Africa
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    439 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by jagdmesser View Post
    Control academia and the media, the kids in the country are then 'cultural marxists' welcoming the great replacement invasion.The entire third world thinks we are completely stupid and is just laughing at us.

    That's what people don't get.... Politics is downward of culture.

    But concerning Human Rights Courts consider the following.
    Article 28
    Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

    Article 29
    Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
    In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
    These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
    Article 30
    Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
    If you don't agree with imposing a New World Order... You do not have any human rights whatsoever.... Other rights aren't recognized neither. So they act in line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Similar Threads

  1. Gun-Rights Bolstered by Supreme Court
    By Ocko in forum The United States
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 06:14 AM
  2. Human Rights Court Rules Against Ethnic German Refugees
    By Siebenbürgerin in forum The German Countries
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Tuesday, October 14th, 2008, 09:03 PM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: Tuesday, August 19th, 2008, 07:56 AM
  4. U.S. Supreme Court to Decide about Asatruar's Rights
    By Tryggvi in forum Germanic Heathenry
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Monday, November 29th, 2004, 06:33 PM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts