differences get compounded over years

you are reletively worse off

Compared to others, but still better off when just looking at yourself

You world influence diminishes

You become less powerful

That's not something the EU cares about too much at the moment

They're more focused on the internals

Rather than external politics

Well guy sure likes to talk about his empire

You need to build the empire before you start looking to use its influence

the eu is going to turn the continent authoritarian before long

Which is why weez likes it

I doubt it

they will, look how theyre trying to cull criticism of immigration. look at articles 13 & 11

you'll see eu-wide speech legislation before long

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

Those would violate the EU fundamental citizens rights @system11

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

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-free-speech-criticize-muhammad-echr-ruled/574174/

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]}

Looks like a nice bullshit explaination tbh

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.