Message from @Joshu
Discord ID: 627654560441303040
and we'll be gone from it
if it isn't already here to some extent, defacto blasphemy laws
They're articles 15 and 17 now ;P
Hence won't happen
Honestly once we are gone, I couldnt care less what they do
The regulation will also go to the EU courts and will be shot down
If it goes bad for them? Well told em so
For violating citizens righrs
already started
"a crime in Austria"
The ECHR upheld it
Which means the ECHR approved
Which means austria were not stopped from violating the rights of this person, which then means that right is not something the ECHR recognises
the more power that goes to europe, the closer we get to european speech laws (and many others) becoming a real thing, and the less people in countries who suffer these laws, have any say in them
At least they'll get thier avacados and save 15 mins a few times a year on holiday
/s
"The domestic courts made a distinction between child marriages and paedophilia. In their opinion, by accusing Muhammad of paedophilia, the applicant had merely sought to defame him, without providing evidence that his primary sexual interest in Aisha had been her not yet having reached puberty or that his other wives or concubines had been similarly young. In particular, the applicant had disregarded the fact that the marriage with Aisha had continued until the Prophet’s death, when she had already turned eighteen and had therefore passed the age of puberty."
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22002-12171%22]}
I can accept that
so its not pedo to sleep with a 9 year old as long as you stay with them. right.
She would have to prove that he was attracted to pre-pubescent children, she failed to do that
but the core problem is that the court is saying that it's not ok to defame historical religious figures, which means it is siding with a blasphemy ruling
If she was going label him as she did.
All the information we have about this dead cunt say he is
It is essentially a blasphemy law
The hadiths? <:pot_of_kek:544849795433496586>
Written 50+ years after his death?
That evidence?
"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. Anyone interested in participating had been able to enrol and as such the applicant could therefore not have assumed that there would only be like-minded people in the room but also people who might be offended by her statements."
More context.
it doesnt matter if its true or not, its a blasphemy ruling. is it illegal to say that jesus was a known child murdered?
No
Click on the link I sent you
Not islam enough
And actually read it.
From that quote you postes
"The applicant had subjectively labelled Muhammad with paedophilia as his general sexual preference, while failing to neutrally inform her audience of the historical background, which consequently did not allow for a serious debate on that issue, and had thus made a value judgement without sufficient factual basis."
>Defamation