How?

"Capable of stirring up prejudice."

The bible isnt evidence

The context

I have defamed cain

moses killed the midianites

You're not holding a seminar, claiming to be an "expert" on the religion, where the wording of the title of said seminar implies fact.

That's the difference

Right so if I held a seminar, as an expert, say a priest.

its not actually illegal to misrepresent history in an essay or lesson

If you lied / defamed someone that would be against the law. Yes.

The seminar is typical religious BS like "God is truth" or something

and then read from the bible

Stating that Cain did in fact kill abel

Lying isn't against the law.

I can now be arrested for preaching the religion

Defamation is.

defamation of a historical religious figure?

Again, read for it yourself

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#%7B%22itemid%22:[%22002-12171%22]%7D

but Muhammad is not pressing charge

Should imams be arrested for preaching Muhammed had sex with kids?

When put in the context it was in, yes. @system11

Which you can read in there.

They are creating blasphemy laws

and not even that

Under very specific conditions?

Sure.

laws against even preaching

Conditions hardly anyone will meet, ever?

Sure.

one person meeting the condition for "Defaming" a prophet of a religion is too much

"Under common law, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false" If it was a UK Court, not the ECHR I'd argue that the onus would be on the court to prove the claim to be false, not that the claim did not have enough proof. But considering it is in Europe, good luck getting a fair trial on that.

Under the conditions in which it happened, it was fine.

That is another thing slen

"As for the context of the impugned statements, the seminars had been widely advertised to the public on the Internet and via leaflets, sent out by the head of the right-wing Freedom Party, addressing them especially to young voters and praising them as “top seminars” in the framework of a “free education package”. The title of the seminar had given the – in hindsight misleading – impression that it would include objective information on Islam."

The legal system of the UK and the USA is simply better on the "Innocent until proven guilty" front.

"The applicant had described herself as an expert in the field of Islamic doctrine, already having held seminars of that kind for a while, thus she had to have been aware that her statements were partly based on untrue facts and apt to arouse (justified) indignation in others."

You cannot provide objective seminars on things in magical religion books

ljust point at the grooming gangs, they believe he was a pedo enough to try and imitate him

You can provide the studies of said books in the most well understood way.